ABSTRACT
That policymakers and analysts have neglected the old strategic principles and debates is somewhat understandable, for much of the reasoning was hypothetical, arcane, and counterintuitive. It is less understandable in light of the continued relevance of issues that were central to Cold War-era deterrence theory. Among these issues are the emphasis to be accorded punishment relative to denial, and offense relative to defense, in US strategy, the benefits and liabilities of assuming that US adversaries are rational, the challenges to deterrence should the US try to “extend deterrence” to encompass third parties, and the limits of deterrence if it is understood to require that the US compel adversaries to concede ground.
