ABSTRACT
The subject of the required strategic power has indeed been controversial. Some assume that relatively less power will successfully deter, while others argue the need of greater strength. The divergence of opinion involves not only the requisite level of force, but also indicates a fundamental disparity of attitude and principle. For the sake of simplicity, these differing opinions will be lumped together into two separate schools of thought promoting two diametrically opposed doctrines of strategy. The minimalist approach posits one objective alone: the creation of deterrence. Deterrence prevents war and consequently circumvents the need of actually using the weapons. This approach is optimistic, accepting the idea that nuclear weapons were produced in order not to be used. Minimalists view the strategic situation as basically stable and static from both the qualitative and quantitative standpoints. Maximalists view the situation as inherently unstable. It is dynamic, pregnant with upheaval and a surprise.
