PT1.S3.Q4 - The theory of military deterrence

BrainiacMS

.

BrainiacMS

.

swetolawyer

Also struggled with this question for a while. Here's my best shot...

Stimulus:

"...fear of retaliation makes a would be aggressor nation hesitate before attacking and is often sufficient to deter it altogether from attacking."

Fear of retaliation ==> deter attack.

"Clearly, then, to maintain military deterrence, a nation would have to be believed to have retaliatory power so great that a potential aggressor nation would have reason to think that it could not defend it self against such retaliation"

=

"if you make people believe that you're so aggressive that another nation can't defend itself against you, then you can maintain military deterrence"

believed to have retaliatory power ==> deter attack

(C)

"One nation's failing to attack another establishes that the nation that fails to attack believes that it could not withstand a retaliatory attack from another nation."

=

"if you deterred an attack, that means that you they must have believed you to have retaliatory power"

deter attack ==> believed to have retaliatory power

This is sufficiency/necessity confusion.

(D)

"It is in the interests of a nation that seeks deterrence and has unsurpassed military power to let potential aggressors against it become aware of its power of retaliatory attack."

=

"If you want to deter, then you want your potential aggressors to believe your have retaliatory power"

deter ==> believed to have retalitory power

The hardest part about this question is the translation from english to Lawgic. I think if i tried to do this question again, I would ditch completely using lawgic and just use intuition, because intuitively, (C) doesn't make sense (there could be other reasons for not attacking), but (D) is a pretty solid parallel to the stimulus.