User:Bailey.pendley/Massive retaliation

The idea of "massive retaliation" was first formally articulated by Eisenhower administration Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in a speech on January 12, 1954.

Dulles stated:"We need allies and collective security. Our purpose is to make these relations more effective, less costly. This can be done by placing more reliance on deterrent power and less dependence on local defensive power... Local defense will always be important. But there is no local defense which alone will contain the mighty land power of the Communist world. Local defenses must be reinforced by the further deterrent of massive retaliatory power. A potential aggressor must know that he cannot always prescribe battle conditions that suit him."At the times Dulles speech was thought of as controversial, and it was because of this that he never explicitly used the words "massive retaliation" instead he spoke about it in relation to a much less threatening term. In his speech Dulles also stated that " local defense must be reinforced by the further deterrent of massive retaliatory power". It is in this quote that we see the idea of massive retaliation being articulated, but the use of the specific words are absent. Dulles never used the exact words because the term "massive retaliation" has an aggressive tone and caused a lot of negative feedback from the public which deemed it as a controversial subject. Dulles speech in 1954 was what formed the basis for the term massive retaliation, which would back up any conventional defense against conventional attacks with a possible massive retaliatory attack involving nuclear weapons.

One of the primary ideas that makes up the term "massive retaliation" is to make know to the enemy that the degree of retaliation is not confined by the magnitude of the attack. This would feasibly strike fear into the opposing side preventing any further or future attacks from happening. The U.S. has always been a national power and the idea of what a full blow retaliation attack could do to an opposing country has kept many hesitant to prod the U.S. into a state of attack.

It was made clear by the end of Dulles speech that he and many other government officials viewed the "reactive measures" as a tactic of the past that would do no good for the U.S. in the near future, and that the dependence on these measures could actually lead to the destruction of the U.S. . The primary goal of "massive retaliation" was a type of preventative measure that was seen as a necessary step to prevent the U.S. from getting into any more wars that would cost American lives. Dulles speech aroused feelings of anger and skepticism from Americans listening from home. With the cold war being newly ended many Americans were still fearful of the possibility of a nuclear war and this caused skepticism in a tactic that could provoke just that. The ultimate goal of introducing a tactic such as massive retaliation by powerful government officials such as Dulles and Eisenhower was to provide a military tactic that would sustain peace and prevail against communism.

North Korean Nuclear Threat
In 2015, the United States and South Korea came to a new agreement regarding the handling of North Korean nuclear threats. The agreement gave South Korea both options to prevent a missile strike, and the ability to strike back quickly with force. The strategy is known as Massive Punishment and Retaliation, and in this, a quick retaliatory strike would be carried out on North Korean officials. This Korean Massive Punishment and Retaliation plan brought back the deterrence strategy previously used. The United States-South Korea partnership understands the implications of a preemptive strike, and put efforts into defense and response. The United States placed a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense(THAAD) in South Korea to protect the country from missile strikes from the North. This defense system is capable of intercepting Ballistic missile s of all ranges. The missile defense system coupled with the plan of a massive retaliatory strike has given South Korea a better sense of security against the North. The threat of a massive retaliation from the South was a deterrent for the North. Following the installation of the THAAD in South Korea and the election of President Donald Trump in 2016, the policy of massive retaliation was growing. President Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping in hopes to gain the support of Nuclear disarmament. In 2017, North Korean missile tests and threats from Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un further increased tensions. Following a North Korean threat of an attack on the United States military base in Guam, it prompted a response from President Trump in which he stated:

“They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen. He has been very threatening ... and as I said they will be met with fire, fury and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before.”

- Donald J. Trump. August, 2018.

This quote from President Trump effectively reignited the Massive Retaliation ideal in the United States, and joined in line with South Korea who were also prepared for a high-scale retaliatory strike.

This threat of Massive Retaliation, and the presidents ideal of applying “maximum pressure” on the North Koreans was soon followed by a summit between the two leaders, President Donald Trump and Supreme Leader Kim Jung-Un of North Korea. The focus of this summit was the end goal of ending the repeated testing of nuclear weapons in North Korea. With the threat of Massive Retaliation from both the United States and South Korea still looming, the summit initially seemed to have a positive response, with the testing of Nuclear devices coming to a halt. This however was followed by a fallout, as it was believed that there was an increase in production of weapons following the summit. This ultimately ended with no advancement to denuclearization in North Korea, and no preemptive or retaliatory strikes by either side.