ABSTRACT
The "preemption" phrase was indeed to be more often used in discussions of the causes of war after the development of nuclear weapons, and the new bomber and missile delivery systems for such weapons, raised some important risks of mutual strikes in the 1950s. If nuclear and other highly destructive weapons fall into the hands of regimes that do not seem to mind such retaliation, or into the hands of non-state actors that do not govern any cities of their own, it may not be possible to rely on such deterrence. Skeptics about the distinction between "offensive" and "defensive" weapons sometimes argue that these words simply refer to a nation's intentions, as some nations will be revisionist and aggressive, while others will be content with the status quo, and as all nations pretend, as political propaganda, to be merely defending themselves.
