Massive retaliation is the immediate use of nuclear weapons if attacked. Massive retaliation was promoted by President Eisenhower. President Eisenhower, a Republican won the 1952 election after former President Truman decided not to run for re-election. Massive retaliation replaced containment which was former President Truman’s foreign policy. Containment uses non-military means compared to massive retaliation which does use military means. The massive retaliation policy allowed for the military to become smaller and for the government to spend less money on the military. But massive retaliation led to brinkmanship which is the willingness to go to the brink or edge to force the other side to back down. This foreign policy was an ineffective
…show more content…
When faced with a crisis the Eisenhower administration would have to drop a nuclear weapon or lose credibility. Losing credibility would be due to the fact that the United States did not own up to what they said.In what they said was that they would attack with a nuclear weapon if attacked. The United States would not like to lose credibility. But if they were to drop a nuclear weapon then that would mean conflict, small or large, and the conflict might eventually led to a nuclear conflagration between the United States and the Soviets. With massive retaliation it would led to a larger conflict and massive damages for the United States. Massive retaliation left Eisenhower and his administration short handed when it came to dealing with threats.Plus it is not the ideal way to deal with threats. Because when dealing with threats the United States can not say this country gets attacked by nuclear weapon, and this other country gets attacked too if they threaten the United States . The United States could not be like Oprah when it comes to threatening countries with attacking them with a nuclear weapon. Massive retaliation left the United States with little options with dealing with threats and or crisis, and the United States should not deal with threats by applying another
When faced with a crisis the Eisenhower administration would have to drop a nuclear weapon or lose credibility. Losing credibility would be due to the fact that the United States did not own up to what they said.In what they said was that they would attack with a nuclear weapon if attacked. The United States would not like to lose credibility. But if they were to drop a nuclear weapon then that would mean conflict, small or large, and the conflict might eventually led to a nuclear conflagration between the United States and the Soviets. With massive retaliation it would led to a larger conflict and massive damages for the United States. Massive retaliation left Eisenhower and his administration short handed when it came to dealing with threats.Plus it is not the ideal way to deal with threats. Because when dealing with threats the United States can not say this country gets attacked by nuclear weapon, and this other country gets attacked too if they threaten the United States . The United States could not be like Oprah when it comes to threatening countries with attacking them with a nuclear weapon. Massive retaliation left the United States with little options with dealing with threats and or crisis, and the United States should not deal with threats by applying another