A potential aggressor must know that he cannot always prescribe battle conditions that suit him. And those employees who resign because they believe conditions have become unendurable are the likeliest to bring a lawsuit against the employer.
Employers should also conduct exit interviews of resigning employees to gauge any such intolerability. Where a constructive discharge can lead to a full recovery of back pay, an employee will likely only be able to prove an adverse employment action under a retaliation statute because that standard is lower than discrimination or wrongful-discharge claims.
The benefits of a mutual second-strike capability led to the concept of arms controlby which potential adversaries would put less priority on simply lowering their force levels as advocated by proponents of disarmament and more on removing incentives to take the military initiative in the event of a severe crisis.
The court categorized these complaints as dissatisfaction and unpleasantness, not intolerability. The United States would threaten unacceptable retaliation were a state to provide the seeds of a terrorist nuclear attack; unable to use terrorists for clandestine delivery, rogue states would be returned to the grim reality of massive retaliation.
This, of course, begs a question: Massive retaliation, also known as a massive response or massive deterrence, is a military doctrine and nuclear strategy in which a state commits itself to retaliate in much greater force in the event of an attack. It would be wise to pursue much of this in a limited multilateral environment, thus helping reassure the world that our attributions are sound and unbiased.
Is it morally acceptable to retaliate? That made possible weapons with no obvious limits to their destructive potential.
Reagan was prevailed upon to moderate his critique, but not before doubts had been created as to the strength of the U. Even before Gorbachev, there had been a discernible trend in military thinking toward emphasizing the opening conventional stage of a war and toward achieving victory within that stage.
With the crisis brewing, and concerned that he had undermined his own credibility through the Bay of Pigs imbroglio a few months earlier, Kennedy responded with a massive buildup of conventional forces in Europe in order, in his words, "to have a wider choice than humiliation or all-out nuclear action.
Under the Kennedy Administration, the United States adopted a more flexible policy in an attempt to avert nuclear war if the Soviets did not cooperate with American demands.
The term "massive retaliation" was coined by Eisenhower administration Secretary of State John Foster Dulles in a speech on January 12, Particularly alarming was evidence that the nuclear strategy of the Soviet Union envisaged using nuclear weapons in a traditional military manner much as if they were conventional weapons—that is, at most to obtain a decisive military advantage in a conflict and at the very least to reduce the damage that an enemy might do to Soviet territory if necessary, by launching preemptive strikes.
A massive retaliation doctrine, as with any nuclear strategy based on the principle of mutually assured destruction and as an extension the second-strike capability needed to form a retaliatory attack, encouraged the opponent to perform a massive counterforce first strike.
Once the deployments were discovered, Kennedy responded to the challenge by implementing a naval blockade of the island and threatening military action if the missiles and bombers were not removed. The Bush administration appears to be acutely aware of such a possibility and is trying to prevent it by fighting state-based nuclear proliferation and by attempting to eliminate terrorist groups.
And unlike shadowy transfers of nuclear material, a nuclear attack would surely be noticed. Other times an employee must show a multiplicity of factors.
But there is no local defense which alone will contain the mighty landpower of the Communist world.
Still, if both sides of a conflict adopt the same stance of massive response, it may result in unlimited escalation a "nuclear spasm"each believing that the other will back down after the first round of retaliation.
If they are not wary, they are inviting claims, if not liability. Our purpose is to make these relations more effective, less costly. Yet it has taken few effective steps to break direct connections between terrorists and nuclear rogues.
In fact, the Soviet Union took many minor military actions that would have necessitated the use of nuclear weapons under a strict reading of the massive retaliation doctrine.
By relying on a large nuclear arsenal for deterrence, President Eisenhower believed that conventional forces could be reduced while still maintaining military prestige and power and the capability to defend the western bloc.
That criticism grew after the Soviet Union demonstrated its technological prowess by successfully launching the first artificial Earth satellite Sputnik 1 in Octobernot long after it had also made the first tests of an intercontinental ballistic missile ICBMthe SS Despite campaign promises to institute ways to control escalation and thereby make crises "safer," the Kennedy administration quickly assumed an aura of being in perpetual emergency.
The elimination of terrorist networks and prevention of nuclear proliferation should be top goals, but a robust policy cannot be predicated on assuming universal success in those two endeavors. Members of the Warsaw Pact might have been beneficiaries of a Soviet nuclear guarantee, but there was no question of shared decision making on nuclear matters.
Upon a conventional attack on Berlin, for instance, the United States would undertake a massive retaliation on the Soviet Union with nuclear weapons. But now the response can be confined to limited targets. If attribution is construed merely as something useful after an attack, perhaps to provide evidence in prosecuting the offenders, it makes sense for it to take a back seat to urgent efforts such as securing ports and improving surveillance.
Inhe said: Inhe said:TITLE: Massive Retaliation Clear understanding of the strategy of~ "massive retaliation" has been obfus-I Cated by somantics and controversy.
Detailed study reveals a strategy much:different from that implied by those e-motional, words. Such a study demon-strates the stratej-ýy was not new. The policy of massive retaliation promised a strong response to Soviet threats against allies, but without the use of nuclear weapons.
false Brinkmanship described the tactic of promoting peace by always being well prepared for war. Before the development of the US nuclear triad, the threat of massive retaliation was hard to make credible, and was inflexible in response to foreign policy issues, as everyday challenges of foreign policy could not have been dealt with using a massive nuclear strike.
In fact, the Soviet Union took many minor military actions that would have necessitated the use of nuclear weapons under a strict reading of the.
1 US Strategic Nuclear Policy Part 2 Ambassador C. Paul Robinson, President, Sandia National Laboratories, ^The root word is terre, which means to frighten with an overwhelming fear, and if you put the prefix.
Any employee who is found to have retaliated against a student for filing a report in good faith will be subject to disciplinary action.
If a student feels they have been retaliated against, the student should lodge a formal complaint with the Chief Compliance Officer by completing the form below and e-mailing it to [email protected] A massive retaliation doctrine, as with any nuclear strategy based on the principle of mutually assured destruction and as an extension the second-strike capability needed to form a retaliatory attack, encouraged the opponent to perform a massive counterforce first strike.
This, if successful, would cripple the defending state's retaliatory capacity and render a massive retaliation strategy useless.Download