Massive Retaliation Argumentative Analysis

America had a head start in the nuclear realm, and its political leaders would use it to their advantage to avoid another WWI or Korea. The way they attempted to accomplish was by creating numerous treaties with nations that surrounded USSR and China. This was Eisenhower’s administration’s diplomatic approach to stopping another Soviet influenced attack on the “Free World”. The second solution was to take advantage of the US technological prowess. The United States in the earlier 1950s and 1960s was leagues beyond the USSR in the ability to deliver, currently being dropped by large jet engine planes, nuclear arms, and had significantly larger stock pile of them as well. These solution lead to the development of a policy summarized as the US ability for “Massive Retaliation”. “Massive Retaliation” basically was the US way of stating that if the Soviet Union or China infringed on the sovereignty of what the US deemed as a part of the “Free World” the US would react by essential wiping them off the face of the earth. This policy was as a means of deterrence, and the thought of actually following through was far from actually every occurring. It was bluff used by the US to prevent USSR from any serious aggression. National security strategist, outside the executive administration, developed the idea that “limited wars” like Korea …show more content…
The next policy that the US would take would be called a “flexible response.” A “flexible response” basically describes the idea that US should maintain a tactical and strategic arsenal at all times in order to deter the USSR (and the Chinese) from using their own, and vice versa. It also called for the US and USSR to maintain conventional forces as well at all times. Lastly, it basically meant the US needed to be flexible in its ability to wage war in order to avoid total