What is the reasoning
behind Nuclear Deterrence?

Nuclear Deterrence is
a 'Necessary Threat'

Having sufficient and credible nuclear weapons ready to be launched upon any nation is a 'necessary threat' to ensure that nuclear weapons are not launched against us.

That is, the reason for "needing" to have an abundance of ready-to-deploy nuclear weapons is that no other NW nation would dare to use their nuclear weapons on another NW nation, because that attacking nation would also then suffer mass-destructive consequences from a nuclear retaliation by the nation first attacked. Therefore, any launched nuclear attack would result in 'mutual destruction'.

In other words, no NW nation would dare to attack another NW nation – because of the probable devastating consequences [to people and property] of a retaliation.

So the reasoning for having a nuclear deterrence is to deter other NW nations from attacking with their nuclear weapons, and perhaps also deter non nuclear weaponized nations from attacking.

Thus, nuclear deterrence is thought to be a strategy for national defense, based upon a threat of retaliatory destruction to any potential attacking nation.

This threat of 'mutually shared destruction' is intended to reduce the possibilities of being attacked by another NW nation, by communicating to other NW nations that, if you attack us with your nuclear weapons, then we will retaliate by attacking you with our weapons and therefore destroy your country and some of your people, as much as you destroy ours.

The intended outcome is that no other NW nation would ever launch a nuclear attack on us, because they would never risk their own cities being attacked and their citizens being killed. In other words, to attack a nation with ready-to-launch nuclear weapons would result in 'mutual destruction'.

Flaws and Problems
in the reasoning for nuclear deterrence

There is no doubt that a threat of nuclear retaliation, with its massive destruction, is a deterrence from a nuclear attack. But is nuclear deterrence "necessary" or "needed" to best ensure national defense and security? Is this the best and safest strategy for national defense? Or are there safer and more effective ways to achieve national defense? And are there some false assumptions and flaws in the overall reasoning behind a nuclear deterrence strategy? In addition, what are some of the problematic implications of nuclear deterrence?

For example, besides all of the dangerous implications of having this defense strategy, there are some very obvious expense implications, which the Pro-deterrence advocates fail to acknowledge.

The Policy of Nuclear Deterrence
is Extremely Expensive

The Policy of Nuclear Deterrence has resulted in enormous expenditures in producing nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, along with continually maintaining and improving them.

An estimated $100 billion is spent globally each year on nuclear weapons and delivery systems; even though this money could instead be used to help solve problems of climate change, pollution, famine, hunger, disease, and economic poverty.

In the U.S. this defense policy of Deterrence is used as a justification for massive military spending and lucrative billion dollar contracts to Defense/Weapons Companies.

The US Congressional Budget Office estimates that about $50 billion a year will be spent over the next 10 years on maintaining and improving nuclear weapon systems... see their Report

Also in this report it is admitted that "the nation's current nuclear forces are reaching the end of their service life. Those forces consist of submarines that launch ballistic missiles (SSBNs), land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), long-range bomber aircraft, shorter-range tactical aircraft carrying bombs, and the nuclear warheads that those delivery systems carry. Over the next two decades, essentially all of those components of nuclear forces will have to be refurbished or replaced with new systems if the United States is to continue fielding those capabilities."

Also important to acknowledge is that during the Bush, Obama, Trump, and now Biden administration, there is no significant difference in our US Policy and Massive Expense on Nuclear Weapons and their delivery systems. In fact, those costs keep rising, as pro-weapon “advisors” (from the weapons industry btw) are continually provoking a fear that China and Russia will out-pace us in advanced weapon systems, UNLESS we spend more and more billions each year on improving our weapons, as a New Nuclear Arms Race [for Super Hi-tech weapons] is now unfolding..

Is there actually a Real Need
for all of this massive expense?

Or are there better and less expensive alternatives for national defense?

And what about all of the many Dangers
and Risks of nations having hundreds or even thousands of nuclear weapons, along with hi-tech advanced delivery systems that are capable of destroying millions of people as well as the global ecosystems supporting all life on Earth?

4 Threats from Nuclear Weapons

Other Articles and Critiques
on the Myths of Deterrence