Talk:Massive retaliation

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

United States History Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of the United States on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject United States HistoryTemplate:WikiProject United States HistoryUnited States History

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject United States History To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : United States History articles needing attention
Infobox : United States History articles needing infoboxes
Stubs : Stub-Class United States History articles, Category:United States history stubs
Other :
- Place either of the following WikiProject banners on United States History-related articles and assess:
  - {{WikiProject United States History|class=|importance=}}
  - {{WikiProject United States|class=|importance=|UShistory=Yes|UShistory-importance=}}

Cold War Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Cold War on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bailey.pendley, Padg9862.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old comment

Mutually Assured Destruction has never been official US policy, ever. It has always been "Assured Destruction", e.g. we WILL destroy you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.239.0 (talk • contribs) 21:10, June 15, 2006

Problems with the theory section

Actually, Massive Response is a form of MAD. The theory section is also wrong in saying that Massive Response encourages first strikes.

There are many problems with this page. Massive Retaliation is described simplistically. It is not equivalent to MAD, nor does it posit preemptive war. Assured Destruction was actually a policy the resulted from McNamara's efforts to get away from Massive Retaliation. --Corinthian 13:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, massive response is NOT a form of MAD. Massive response was Ike's baby, it arose from a fear of an imbalance between Soviet and American forces (with the Soviets perceived to have the advantage) and the belief that nuclear forces would be a cheaper balancer than would a buildup of conventional forces. Also, the wiki states something about a "strict reading" of massive retaliation - this doesn't make much sense because the "policy" was intentionally left vague. Kennedy came up with flexible response BEFORE the Cuban Missiles crisis, MAD came about after it because Kennedy and staff began to believe that deterrence was more of a black/white thing and that the graduated responses called for under flexible response were insufficient. 173.22.123.35 (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the 'Policy Shift' section

Is it accurate to say Kennedy abandoned 'massive retaliation' during the Cuban Missile Crisis? The Soviets tried to intimidate the U.S., but there was no actual attack to retaliate against. To say Kennedy abandoned 'massive retaliation' seems to imply that 'massive retaliation' precluded diplomacy, that the policy of 'massive retaliation' was to retaliate against threats, not just actual attacks. In his Missile Crisis speech, Kennedy said: "It shall be the policy of this Nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union." A promised 'full retaliatory response' to a single nuclear missile launch, not just against the U.S. but against any nation in the hemisphere -- I think that fits 'massive retaliation.'Ten-K (talk) 06:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He never abandoned retaliation, he was ready to escalate and had the war plans drawn to invade Cuba which could have led to a nuclear conflict. Schnarr 04:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think that section is accurate. As you point out, moving missiles is not an attack, and so does not not require massive retaliation. Kennedy was free to try diplomatic responses rather than attack, while still being ready to retaliate if an attack occurred.

Frankly, this entire article feels like it should be folded in the MAD article, since it doesn't reference any type of retaliation other than nuclear retaliation. 151.203.226.138 (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flexible response predates the Cuban Missile Crisis. SIOP-63 went into effect in July 1962. It was the flexible response plan designed by McNamara which replaced the massive retaliation plan--SIOP-62. The missiles were discovered on Cuba in October 1962 and were removed shortly afterwards. The flexible response remained until the end of the Kennedy administration and beyond.--Maxaxax (talk) 06:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --199.253.177.254 (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

We're down to one working citation now, and I don't see it as a reliable source. I'm not finding much in a casual Google search to distinguish this from Deterrence theory so, if there's no objection (and I don't find a better cite), I plan to redirect this article there. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:26, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not known as the Dulles Doctrine?

The corresponding article in some other languages is titled Dulles Doctrine. But in the English Wikipedia, Dulles Doctrine redirects to Dulles' Plan. Some scope for confusion here. See also List of eponymous doctrines. RichardVeryard (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Massive Retaliation and Mutually Assured Destruction

These clearly do not work on the same principle. Massive Retaliation presupposed nuclear monopoly or overwhelming nuclear superiority, such that the Soviet Union could not respond in kind. It was intended as a way in which the US could contend with the vast Soviet conventional forces. Mutually assured destruction presupposed nuclear parity, which was achieved by the Soviet Union in the 1960s — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.124.242 (talk) 23:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.188.111.73 (talk) 22:44, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Massive retaliation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514020511/http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/cold-war/strategy/article-dulles-retaliation_1962-01-25.htm to http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/history/cold-war/strategy/article-dulles-retaliation_1962-01-25.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:21, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Essay-like (History section)

Hi all, long time reader, but just starting to get into editing, so apologies for any impropriety.

I fixed up the history section as best I could, but the bottom half is a bit of a tangle of facts and opinion. I was tempted to delete it all, but the cited paper does raise some interesting points about the public's misperception of the policy. If I have the time later I'll fix the section myself. Apfelmaische (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

I made some changes to try and enforce wikipedias neutural voice but they were promtly reverted (this is fine) however, could the writer please refer to the "what wikipeadia is not" article. this is not meant as an attack or critasism i am mearly trying to help. we should try to disscuss improvements. Metalisk (talk) 11:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also it would be helpfull to refer to the wiki editing policy https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy Metalisk (talk) 11:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix that section up, let me know what you think. I think it sticks closer to the sources now, and has more historical context. Apfelmaische (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i can see a posible sorce of confusion when it says to write in your own words here is a more detial explanation: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Copyright_and_plagiarism

you can allso look at the 5 pillars: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars Metalisk (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

most relivant link: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:NOTESSAY&redirect=no Metalisk (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were not "neutral voice", they were WP:WEASEL. I also don't know why you're posting multiple times just to link to WP policies. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

my bad im new to wikapedia and im sorry if i sounded authritarian. i tried but clearly not very succesfully. i think it might be better to remove the section as it is not exactly very relivant to the article as it is mostly just comments and speculation on what dulles was trying to convay. however an imidate removmal may be a bit disuraging id like to hear your thoughts. Metalisk (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

here is a version withought opinions:

Dulles did not explicitly use the words "massive retaliation"; . In his speech, Dulles also stated that "local defense must be reinforced by the further deterrent of massive retaliatory power". , the use of the specific words are absent. Dulles never used the exact words "massive retaliation" .

(One of the ideas related to the term "massive retaliation" is to make known to the enemy that the degree of retaliation is not confined by the magnitude of the attack.) (debatable)

World War II had recently ended. Metalisk (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The section is a summary of what reliable sources say about the topic. There is no reason to edit it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok Metalisk (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel–Hamas war

Should the Israel–Hamas war be noted as an example in this article? There are quite a few sources that describe Israel's response as a "massive retaliation". BD2412 T 03:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I think so! The article could use some restructuring to make that work.

Maybe the current sections could be turned into sub-headings of 'United States' or 'Cold War' and a new section could be titled 'Arab–Israeli conflict', or simply 'Isreal'. It's probably worth mentioning the Samson Option in the new section. Apfelmaische (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]