How did nuclear deterrence shape Cold War military strategy?

During the Cold War, nuclear deterrence became the cornerstone of military strategy, fundamentally shifting the focus from winning a conventional war to preventing one through the threat of overwhelming retaliation. This doctrine was rooted in the belief that the destructive power of nuclear weapons made direct conflict between superpowers unthinkable.123

Key aspects of this strategy included:

• Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD): This principle held that a nuclear attack by one superpower would trigger an overwhelming counterattack, resulting in the annihilation of both parties. By the mid-1960s, U.S. doctrine shifted toward countervalue targeting, which focused on destroying an enemy's population centers to ensure the guarantee of mutual destruction.1
• The Nuclear Triad: To ensure a credible second-strike capability—the ability to respond after absorbing a first strike—the U.S. developed the nuclear triad. This structure distributed nuclear assets across manned bombers, land-based ballistic missiles, and nuclear submarines, making the arsenal more resilient to a preemptive attack.14
• Strategic Evolution: While early policies like Eisenhower’s "New Look" relied heavily on nuclear threats, the limitations of deterrence in "brushfire wars" (such as Vietnam) led to the adoption of "flexible response" under the Kennedy administration, which emphasized conventional forces alongside nuclear capabilities.1

Ultimately, nuclear deterrence created a tense, indefinite stalemate, as both superpowers engaged in an arms race to maintain a perceived balance of power, prioritizing the prevention of war over traditional military victory.123