Language
Country/Area
No result found
The Art of Counterattack: What is Counterforce Strike and Why Is It Important?
With the proliferation of global nuclear weapons and the evolution of military strategies, counterforce strike has become an increasingly important military concept. This attack method mainly targets the enemy's nuclear weapons system and aims to destroy its ability to conduct nuclear attacks. The theory of counterforce strike stands in sharp contrast to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) in discussions of the use of nuclear weapons.
Counterforce strike theory holds that limited nuclear war is possible and that nuclear weapons are just one step in the escalation process.
The main purpose of a counterforce strike is to destroy the enemy's nuclear weapons before they can launch a nuclear attack. This requires that the attack must be nearly 100 percent effective, a fully successful counterforce attack. How to improve strike accuracy is the key to achieving this goal, because to ensure that the nuclear warhead can detonate near the target, increased accuracy means an increase in costs.
In a limited nuclear war, limited counterattacks against enemy cities have become a strategic plan established by many proponents of counterforce strikes. Some theorists believe that the deterrent effect of mutually assured destruction cannot be trusted in the face of small-scale attacks because such behavior is almost suicidal. This complicates the choice of retaliation and could even lead to a third nuclear war.
If a country is attacked by a nuclear attack, it will choose to respond with a limited nuclear strike against one or several cities of the enemy country.
At the same time, the existence of the missile defense system has also triggered a series of discussions. Compared with MAD theorists who believe that the missile defense system should be abandoned because it will bring instability, supporters of the counter-force strike theory believe that it is an effective means of protecting small-scale nuclear attacks and can improve the missile defense system to a certain extent. The success rate of counterattack. This point is highly controversial in military strategy, because too much defense may drive the enemy to carry out larger-scale attacks, exacerbating the risk of nuclear war.
In the US nuclear strategy, the concept of counter-force strike has been reflected. The United States uses a variety of preemptive weapons such as Trident II and Minuteman III. The Circular Error Probable (CEP) of these weapons is quite low, allowing them to accurately destroy targets. In addition, the development of stealth bombers has made the United States more flexible in the use of nuclear weapons, allowing it to conduct a first nuclear strike in a secret surprise attack.
With strategic adjustments in the 1970s and 1980s, the U.S. military began to accept limited nuclear options that could control escalation, thereby legitimizing counterforce strike strategies.
In the Soviet defense strategy, although their nuclear weapons response was a massive response to any nuclear use, there were also corresponding considerations for limited attacks, which made Cold War nuclear policy more complicated. Different countries' understanding of counterforce strikes has significantly affected the direction of their international relations, and the international community's response to this strategy cannot be ignored.
In response to the current situation, many opinions have begun to question the US nuclear policy. Left-wing philosopher Slavoj Zizek pointed out that the US nuclear policy towards Iran and North Korea seems to be a manifestation of counter-force strikes. For Russia and China, mutually assured destruction is emphasized. The ambivalence of this strategy has also caused heated discussions in public opinion.
Faced with the growing nuclear power and the complex international situation, how will counter-force strikes affect the global security situation?
