ABSTRACT
The offensive arsenal of deterrence is perceived to be ‘defensive’ in the atomic age whereas defense appears to be ‘offensive.’ Counterforce thinking has grown along two types of response: the development of a first strike capability to paralyze the enemy’s forces, and the search for a defense which is able to veto the enemy’s capacity to retaliate. The apocalyptic approach reacts negatively to the idea of going from offense to defense in the nuclear age. The protecting of nuclear forces as well as command and control headquarters, plus cities, is called in the strategic jargon ‘active’ defense-simply because missiles are used to destroy missiles. Implementing a Ballistic Missile Defense program would lead to even more extensive nuclear planning, and would create disarray and confusion among the population; as was the case between 1968 and 1972 when Anti-Ballistic Missiles almost came to deployment.
