During this speech at the United Nations, the U.S. insisted that they will protect its allies by responding to military provocation “at places and with means of our own choosing” (Dulles, 1954). This was a military doctrine and a nuclear strategy in which a state commits itself to retaliate in much greater force in the event of an attack. The policy announcement was further evidence of Eisenhower’s decision to rely heavily on the nation’s nuclear arsenal as the primary means of defense against communist aggression. Even though Eisenhower didn’t personally give the speech, he agreed 100%. This was another proof that Eisenhower’s all-or-nothing strategy threatened to turn the Soviet Union into a smoking, radiating ruin within 2 hours. It meant an all out attack and adding the fear of making a nuclear war too destructive to fight - that it would be meaningless. It was also Eisenhower’s belief that a stronger reliance on nuclear weapons as the backbone of America’s defense was two-fold. Atomic weapons were far more effective with threatening potential adversaries, as in the Massive Retaliation speech, and they were much less expensive than the costs associated with a long standing
During this speech at the United Nations, the U.S. insisted that they will protect its allies by responding to military provocation “at places and with means of our own choosing” (Dulles, 1954). This was a military doctrine and a nuclear strategy in which a state commits itself to retaliate in much greater force in the event of an attack. The policy announcement was further evidence of Eisenhower’s decision to rely heavily on the nation’s nuclear arsenal as the primary means of defense against communist aggression. Even though Eisenhower didn’t personally give the speech, he agreed 100%. This was another proof that Eisenhower’s all-or-nothing strategy threatened to turn the Soviet Union into a smoking, radiating ruin within 2 hours. It meant an all out attack and adding the fear of making a nuclear war too destructive to fight - that it would be meaningless. It was also Eisenhower’s belief that a stronger reliance on nuclear weapons as the backbone of America’s defense was two-fold. Atomic weapons were far more effective with threatening potential adversaries, as in the Massive Retaliation speech, and they were much less expensive than the costs associated with a long standing