Why did supporters of counterforce doctrine believe a limited nuclear war might be possible?

Supporters of the counterforce doctrine believed a limited nuclear war was possible because they viewed nuclear conflict as a manageable strategic tool rather than an inevitable "zero-sum" catastrophe. Their belief was grounded in several key arguments:12

• City Avoidance: The doctrine relied on the "city avoidance" principle, which proposed that both the United States and the Soviet Union could establish "ground rules" to target only military infrastructure—such as army installations and weapons systems—while sparing civilian populations and economic bases.12
• Credible Deterrence: Proponents argued that an all-out nuclear threat was often incredible, as no leader would willingly initiate a strike that guaranteed their own destruction. By offering a range of limited nuclear options, they believed they could create a more credible deterrent that allowed for a measured response to aggression without triggering total annihilation.12
• Structured Exchange: The strategy assumed that adversaries would act rationally, agreeing to restricted targeting to preserve their own retaliatory capabilities. This mutual understanding was intended to prevent escalation, allowing both sides to fight and potentially "win" a conflict within these structured, limited terms.1

Ultimately, this approach sought to minimize damage and provide military commanders with flexible options should deterrence fail.12