Originally Posted by
airborne_artist
Deterrence is only a bluff if you have insufficient resources to back up your words.
To a point.
Our deterrence posture was never enough to win WW3. It was sufficient, or believed to be so, that it could wreak sufficient damage to an enemy such that it would stop them trying.
A case in point was during Confrontation. Against a huge land mass and modern aircraft we deployed just
four medium bombers when any reasonable air power weapons effort would have required about 80 aircraft
per target. The light bomber forces would have barely been able to get feet dry.
In the Falklands our deterrence posture, and policitcal will, fell below the critical threshold. The forces needed to return to the status quo ante bellum far exceeded the level required to deter.
In the Cold War there was no doubt that the Russians, had they wished, could have reached the channel ports, but at a cost that it would seem they deemed too high.
We have to decide policy, decide what, if anything we wish to deter, and then provide the resources to implement the policy. If we cannot afford to pay for these resources then we must change our policy.
Returning to our insurance analogy. World-wide travel insurance is less expensive if we exclude the USA. We probably won't go to the USA, so it would be a waste of money to include the USA. If we do go to the USA hopefully nothing will happen. Yer, right Tommy.