ABSTRACT
The mutual vulnerability paradigm has been the dominant mode of American strategic theorizing. Most illustrative of the pervasive effect the mutual vulnerability paradigm has had on the US strategic force posture is the successful policy case that was established against ballistic missile defense deployment during the "anti-ballistic missile system debate." The logical conclusion drawn from the assumptions of Assured Vulnerability that within very wide parameters asymmetries in strategic capabilities are of no political or military significance, also seems to be rejected by the Soviet Union. Consequently, a superior position could be based upon actual performance options and/or perceptions. The vulnerability of United States strategic forces to Soviet preemption and Soviet active and passive defense programs could render a limited Soviet nuclear strike a "least miserable" course of action in a crisis. Finally, the rather muscular strategic force posture appropriate to victory denial and damage-limitation is scored as a potential source of crisis instability and arms racing.
