A great amount has been talked and written about what constitutes a sufficient balance and what really is meant by the concepts of 'balance' and 'deterrence'.
Democrats always assure us that deterrence will work, but when the time comes to deter, they're against it.
The American people have determined that the good to be derived from capital punishment - in deterrence, and perhaps most of all in the meting out of condign justice for horrible crimes - outweighs the risk of error.
Of course it can be said of jails, too, that they try - by punishing the troublesome - to deter others. No doubt, in certain instances this deterrence actually works. But generally speaking it fails conspicuously.
The Blue and White government, led by me, will assemble the strongest security cabinet against terrorism and restore deterrence.
Deterrence is still fundamentally about influencing an actor's decisions. It is about a solid policy foundation. It is about credible capabilities. It is about what the U.S. and our allies as a whole can bring to bear in both a military and a nonmilitary sense.
Nuclear deterrence doesn't work outside of the Russian - U.S. context; Saddam Hussein showed that.
You can distill deterrence down to two factors: capability and will.
When you talk about peace through strength, what you're talking about is the concept of deterrence.
The only thing that kept the Cold War cold was the mutual deterrence afforded by nuclear weapons.
