How did counterforce targeting differ from countervalue targeting?

In nuclear strategy, counterforce and countervalue targeting represent fundamentally different approaches to the use of nuclear weapons.

Counterforce Targeting

Counterforce targeting focuses on destroying an adversary’s military infrastructure, including nuclear weapons systems and military bases. The doctrine is rooted in the principle of city avoidance, with the goal of limiting damage and potentially keeping a nuclear conflict limited. By targeting only military assets, proponents hoped to create rules for a structured exchange, though the strategy is inherently associated with the risk of a preemptive first strike intended to disarm an opponent.12

Countervalue Targeting

In contrast, countervalue targeting targets an enemy’s cities, civilian population, and socioeconomic base. Its primary purpose is deterrence; by threatening the total destruction of an adversary's society, it aims to prevent a first strike. This approach is closely linked to the theory of mutually assured destruction, as it ensures that any nuclear conflict would result in unacceptable, suicidal losses for both sides.1