What is the difference between deterrence by denial and deterrence by punishment?

Answer 1

Fred Korkisch

This is a rather artificial question, because in the official literature the term "deterrence by denial" was never used, asked, nor answered, nor mentioned.

The post-nuclear literature tried to invent and imagined a number of terms and phrases that were never used by the people who wrote about nuclear war planning and doctrine.

Deterrence was either used in relation to

* Gradual Deterrence (see: The gradual use of nuclear weapons, or a gradual use of force, like the escalation President Johnson used against North Vietnam etc.);

* Minimum Deterrence (see: The threat to use force, including nuclear weapons on a limited scale, or the minimum number of strategic weapons which provides a credible deterrence; see SALT, START);

* Finite Deterrence (see: The nuclear capabilties which will survive any enemy attack, available for a devastating counterstrike, like SLBM-weapons on submarines;

* Deterrence by Punishment (this is a rather juridical term, used after WW II, to explain the legal rightfulness of the bombardments of German and Japanese cities, as a justified "punishment" for the aggressions of both states, used later on for the possible use of nuclear weapons as a retaliatorial strike. To explain "Deterrence by Denial" one can follow the logic of protection of nuclear delivery systems by various measures, like dispersal of bombers, missiles in silos, SLBM-submarines etc.