- Also called:
- Flexible Deterrent Options (FDO)
- Key People:
- Robert S. McNamara
- Maxwell Davenport Taylor
- Related Topics:
- nuclear strategy
Flexible Response
-
What is flexible response in warfare?
Flexible Response is a U.S. defense strategy using diplomatic, political, economic, and military options to deter enemy attacks. It originated from criticisms of U.S. national security policy in the book The Uncertain Trumpet (1960) by General Maxwell D. Taylor.
President John F. Kennedy advocated for Flexible Deterrent Options in March 1961, leading to its adoption as official U.S. national security policy and by NATO in 1967. This strategy allowed the president to choose from military and nonmilitary options, ensuring proportional reactions to hostile actions. The approach included diplomatic, political, and economic measures, alongside military modernization and special forces training.
During the Cold War, Flexible Response helped avert nuclear conflict and increased the credibility of the U.S. military. While successful in some crises, like the Cuban missile crisis, it failed in others, such as the Vietnam War.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why was flexible response developed as a military strategy?
Flexible Response was developed as a U.S. defense strategy using a range of diplomatic, political, economic, and military options to deter enemy attacks and thwart communist expansion. It emerged as an alternative to President Dwight D. Eisenhowerâs New Look strategy, which relied on massive retaliation with nuclear weapons, regardless of the scale of the provocation.
By 1960, public opinion shifted against the New Look strategy because it wasn't effective in stemming communist-inspired Third World revolutions. Many felt that a new, more flexible approach was needed to address such low-level âbrushfireâ conflicts. President John F. Kennedy then instructed his advisors to draft a new strategy to safeguard the U.S. role in the world.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How is flexible response different from massive retaliation?
Flexible Response and Massive Retaliation represent contrasting approaches to national security. Massive Retaliation, exemplified by President Eisenhower's New Look strategy, relied on the threat of a large-scale nuclear attack to deter Soviet military actions, even for non-nuclear provocations. This strategy aimed to deter all forms of aggression without maintaining large conventional forces, which was considered inexpensive.
Flexible Response, introduced as an alternative, utilized a wider range of diplomatic, political, economic, and military options to deter enemy attacks. This strategy allowed the U.S. to choose from nonmilitary and military options, meeting hostile actions with proportional reactions. Though costly, Flexible Response increased the credibility of the U.S. military and helped avoid nuclear conflict.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How did flexible response affect NATO's defense plans during the Cold War?
Flexible Response, adopted by NATO in 1967, redefined its defense strategy during the Cold War by moving away from the threat of immediate, massive nuclear retaliation. This approach allowed for a more measured response to aggression, choosing from diplomatic, political, economic, and military options.
The strategy aimed to increase the nuclear threshold, requiring a conventional response phase before resorting to nuclear weapons. While the U.S. saw this as a way to prevent rapid escalation to nuclear war, some European members worried that a purely conventional defense would not be a sufficient deterrent.
Flexible Response led to the modernization of U.S. missile fleets and increased conventional capabilities. The strategy aimed to deter smaller conflicts and reassure allies, but its high costs and mixed results sparked debates over nuclear deterrence and arms control within NATO.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What were some criticisms or challenges of the flexible response strategy?
Flexible Response, a U.S. defense strategy using diverse options to deter attacks, faced criticisms and challenges. A primary issue was the high cost of maintaining varied military capabilities and personnel. Some questioned the credibility of the U.S. nuclear threat, doubting a president would initiate nuclear action, advocating for a higher nuclear threshold via stronger conventional forces.
European governments, however, felt conventional forces couldn't sufficiently deter the Soviet Union, as Soviet territory would remain safe from conventional warfare, making the risks acceptable to the Kremlin. This led to the 1967 compromise of flexible response, balancing conventional and nuclear options. Despite solving some crises, it failed in others, like the Vietnam War, showing mixed results.
3 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
Flexible Response, U.S. defense strategy in which a wide range of diplomatic, political, economic, and military options are used to deter an enemy attack. The term flexible response first appeared in U.S. General Maxwell D. Taylorâs book The Uncertain Trumpet (1960), which sharply criticized U.S. national security policy. Initially designed to thwart communist expansion more effectively, the strategy has become a fundamental principle of American military thinking.
The New Look strategy
Flexible Response was an alternative to President Dwight D. Eisenhowerâs New Look national security policy. The New Look approach relied heavily on the capacity for a devastating assault with nuclear weaponsâthe strategy of massive retaliationâto fight Soviet military provocations, regardless of whether they involved nuclear weapons or not. New Look was considered inexpensive because the Eisenhower administration thought it could deter all forms of aggression by the Soviet Union and China without maintaining large conventional military forces.
Development of the Flexible Deterrent Options strategy
By 1960, however, U.S. public opinion was turning against New Look because it was not effective in stemming communist-inspired Third World revolutions. Many felt that a new, more-flexible approach was needed to address such low-level âbrushfireâ conflicts. Almost as soon as he moved into the White House in 1961, President John F. Kennedy instructed his advisers to begin drafting a new strategy to safeguard the U.S. role in the world. The new administration strongly believed that the United States should have a wide variety of military and nonmilitary responses to communist provocations. Kennedy presented to Congress an outline of a strategy that would come to be known as Flexible Deterrent Options in March 1961, and it was adopted as an official national security policy of the United States. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization adopted the strategy in 1967.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
Flexible Response gave the president the ability to select from nonmilitary options, as well as military options, when responding to a crisis and allowed the United States to meet each hostile action with a proportional reaction. The lines of attack included diplomatic measures (such as pursuing strong relations with potential allies while being ready to withdraw embassy personnel on short notice), political measures (such as increasing the dialogue with the press and releasing frequent public policy statements), economic measures (such as increasing or canceling American aid to other countries), and, perhaps most important, military measures (such as modernizing the U.S. missile fleet, increasing conventional capabilities, and intensifying training for special forces).
The strategy was quite costly, however, because developing and maintaining sizable conventional and unconventional weapons, as well as various kinds of military personnel, required considerable expenditures. During the Cold War, Flexible Response contributed to both the avoidance of nuclear conflict and the proliferation of limited yet vicious military clashes. The strategy had the effect of increasing the credibility of the U.S. military, because it was able to leverage an appropriate proportional response to different kinds of crises (which would deter an enemyâs appetite for smaller, limited wars), while also reassuring allied countries.
Like most Cold War strategies, Flexible Response yielded mixed results. Although the combination of diplomacy, economic sanctions, and a threatening military posture solved some crises, including the Cuban missile crisis and the 1965 coup dâĂ©tat in the Dominican Republic, the same combination failed to bring about a positive resolution to the Vietnam War.