PT1.S3.Q04 - The theory of military deterrence...

Comments

• 1 Like

  AlwaysBeClosing Alum Member

  August 2020 edited August 2020 87 karma

  (Military deterrence) : the threat of retaliation can deter aggressing nations.
  Hence, to have military deterrence, a nation would have to be believed to have retaliatory power that aggressing nation can’t defend.
  Conditional Logic:
  (threat of retaliation ---> deter attacks)
  (to deter attacks/maintain military deterrence--->threat of retaliation)

  C. Although, I agree with you that C is an attractive answer choice. I think what deterred me was thinking, “is there another reason for a nation to not attack?” Perhaps there are economic reasons to not attack. Also, why does a nation have to attack? What if the nation wants to be a chill nation?
• 1 Like

  Chris Nguyen Alum Member Administrator Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor

  August 2020 4598 karma

  Hey there!

  I think your bi-conditional is valid, but (C) does not trigger your biconditional. Your biconditional rests on the belief of retaliatory power.

  (C) is talking about failing to attack another nation. We don't know anything about what goes on in their mind when they do not attack. Maybe they did not attack not because of deterrence but they didn't attack because a major storm hit them suddenly. We just don't know. So that's why it (C) doesn't have to be true.
• AlwaysBeClosing Alum Member

  August 2020 edited August 2020 87 karma

  Yes, I agree with Christopher it is a bi conditional. However, it's a mistaken reversal, but, that's not the issue at hand because the statements have to be true.
• Whatslsat Member

  August 2020 edited August 2020 476 karma

  Thanks guys for the explanations! Although, I'm still very confused

  From the stimulus I gathered, B <---> Deterrence.
  This is how I translated C: failing to attack... (Deterrence) --> Believe that it could not withstand... (Belief) which must be true based on how I translated the conditional statement from the stimulus.

  Am I wrong in equating "failing to attack" with "deterrence" when they are not the same thing?

  The only reason that I can think of that makes C wrong is that it's drawing a conclusion about a specific nation based on the general idea.

  Any additional thoughts will be greatly appreciated!
• 1 Like

  AlwaysBeClosing Alum Member

  August 2020 edited August 2020 87 karma

  C) If a nation fails to attack another nation it must be the case that it believes that it could not withstand a retaliatory attack from the other nation.

  The concept of military deterrence requires an (aggressing) nation that will be deterred from attacking on the basis of fear of retaliation.

  What if a nation IS NOT an aggressing nation? What reason would they have to attack?

  There are many reasons to not attack another nation outside of the potential retaliatory attack from the other nation.

  The scope of C is too broad when we are talking about potential aggressor nations.

  Does that make sense?
• Whatslsat Member

  August 2020 476 karma

  I'm understanding your explanation to mean that since the nation is not necessarily an aggressor nation it is not a sufficient condition for the bi-conditional to be triggered which makes more sense.

  After I read your explanation and went back to read the stimulus again I realized that failing to attack is in fact different than deterrence. Deterrence implies outside force while failing to do something can simply mean self-imposed.

  Overall these together makes much more sense. I am not 100% there yet but your explanation makes a huge difference, thanks so much!
• chrleesj Core Member

  March 2022 edited March 2022 32 karma

  I know that this thread is 2 years old, but I just worked on this question today and I had the same confusion and picked C. So I thought I'd reply here in case it helps someone else in the future.

  For me the last sentence of the stimulus was easy to misinterpret because of the way it's written with the clause about deterrence in the beginning:
  -"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 itself against such retaliation."

  If you rewrite the sentence so that the phrasing isn't as confusing, the conditional relationship becomes a lot clearer:
  -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 itself against such retaliation to maintain military deterrence.

  I interpreted the conditional relationship to look like this:
  Belief in retaliatory power → Fear of retaliation → Military deterrence

  The original phrasing made me confuse the necessary and sufficient conditions, and I wrongly thought that it was: military deterrence → belief in retaliatory power, which is exactly what answer C says and makes C an attractive choice even though it's a mistaken reversal.

  Answer D is the correct choice because it triggers the conditional relationship that's laid out in that last sentence. If deterrence is the goal, then it's definitely in the interests of a nation to make its retaliatory power known to others and make them believe that power exists.
• SmokyMountainBear-1-1 Alum Member

  March 2023 68 karma

  any more response to this thread? Still confused about how to correctly translate the last sentence to proper lawgic.