History Essay: Massive Retaliation and Augustine's Just War Theory

This history essay explores two key concepts: the doctrine of "massive retaliation" introduced by Secretary John Foster Dulles during the Cold War, and St. Augustine's views on war. The essay details the strategy's reliance on nuclear weapons as a deterrent against the Soviet Union, and the concerns raised by allies regarding its practical application and moral implications. It then contrasts this with Augustine's perspective on war, emphasizing the necessity of morality, the pursuit of peace, and the limitations of the "just war" theory. The essay highlights the challenges in applying these principles, especially the ethical ambiguities and the difficulties in maintaining morality during warfare, referencing historical examples and modern technologies like drones to illustrate the evolution of these concepts. It concludes by underscoring the decline of morality and faith in modern warfare, contrasting with Augustine's initial intent.

Running head: HISTORY ESSAY
HISTORY ESSAY
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
HISTORY ESSAY
Answer to question 1:
Secretary John Foster Dulles introduced the strategic doctrine of “massive retaliation”
during the 1950s when the world was almost dominated by the Soviet forces
(Nsarchive2.gwu.edu, 2019). It refers to the strategy where the country under attack or a threat of
an attack retaliates with force, which would be disproportionate to the attacker’s size. The
concept, as Secretary Dulles explains himself, is a transitional one between the two extreme
notions of “recreating large-scale conventional forces to match that of the Soviets and
withdrawing to ‘fortress America’” (Nsarchive2.gwu.edu, 2019). The “fortress America”
concept was coined by the then US President J. Edgar Hoover. The strategy appealed to the US
population especially in the years that followed the Second World War.
During the period after the Second World War when the US and the Soviet Union were in
a Cold War, the strategy of massive retaliation was proposed as the only effective way to stop the
Soviets. As per the strategy, America would not have to spend excessively on long-standing
armies instead, it would rely on something that could deter the enemy and at the same time,
incurred least budget. The US had been able to restrict the Soviet Union in the last five to six
years post the Second World War using the massive retaliation strategy that pointed mainly
towards the use of nuclear weapons (Nsarchive2.gwu.edu, 2019).. The strategy of massive
retaliation worked in favor of the Americans, as it was able to deter the Soviet Union and force it
to comply with the Warsaw Pact. The strategy was that the US would not try to match the
conventional superiority of the Russians but it would beat them unconventionally. The US made
use of the battlefield atomic weapons to offset the Russians. The atomic weapons were kept as
deterrence in case the Russians attempted to break any peacetime pact. The doctrine of massive
retaliation stated that having sufficiently developed nuclear armament would greatly enhance

2
HISTORY ESSAY
defense capabilities. The US thus focused on enhancing the nuclear capabilities, which helped
keep the Soviet the forces at bay.
The allies however, objected to the doctrine of massive retaliation because of its reliance
on using tactical nuclear weapons. The allies especially the the European nations were of the
view that the massive retaliation was not able to convince the masses about America’s credibility
to retaliate in the face of increasing strategic power. Secretary Dulles himself presented the
reasons for which the NATO allies could question the efficiency of the strategy. He stated that
under the present strategic doctrine, the US could convince the allies to hold on for maximum of
one to two years (Nsarchive2.gwu.edu, 2019).. However, he states that holding on to this
strategic doctrine any longer than two years could make allies develop doubts and question it.
The doctrine might even imprison the US in terms of developing its weaponry. The allies were
questioning the massive retaliation also because they raised doubts over the usability of nuclear
weapons in wars. The uselessness of chemical warfare was already proved in the wars that
preceded the situation at that time.
Answer to question 2:
The basic tenet as identified in the paragraph describing Saint Augustine’s views on war
is morality. According to Augustine, although war is horrible and claims lives, it is a necessary
option at times. The paragraph explains that while thinking of going to war, people must
remember that their bodily strength is a gift of God as it is for others also. Therefore, employing
own gift of God against the God is not correct (Newadvent.org, 2019). When war is waged, it
should be waged to bring peace and not otherwise. In addition, any war should be fought with
complete faith or morality that must be kept even with the opponent. War should only be raised

3
HISTORY ESSAY
as inevitability and with a view that through it, God could deliver peace. The chief responsibility
of those engaged in war should be as peacemakers that, by defeating the enemy, they must lead
them to peace again (Newadvent.org, 2019). Therefore, necessity and not will should be the
reason behind violence.
Morality in war must be maintained before and during the war, stated Augustine.
However, in the centuries that followed since Augustine wrote about war, countries that went to
war forgot about the actual necessity of war. According to the ‘just war’ traditions as proposed
by Augustine, the parties going to war must ensure that their decision to go to war is morally
justifiable and that they would use ethical ways during the war (Newadvent.org, 2019). In most
of the wars that were fought during the past centuries, these ethics have fallen flat. The reason is
that the “just war” theory and the tenet of morality in itself is ambiguous and problematic. The
nations that wage war against another nation consider their actions as ethical or moral and the
opposing nation consider theirs as moral. As Calhoun (2001) explains, although the traditional
prerequisites for waging a “just war” are apparently independent, in actual practice every tenet is
“subject to ultimately the interpretation of a legitimate authority”. The author further states that
for this reason, the concept of “just war” is paradoxical and thus, practically unsustainable. When
war occurs, both parties kill innocent people without thinking about the moralities. The killing of
millions of people during the First and the Second World War stands testimony to it.
Often, critics of the “just war” tenet argue that assassinating those guilty of atrocities and
crimes is a much moral and better option that waging war against an entire nation under the false
pretense of bringing about peace. Schulzke (2016) presents arguments related to the use of
modern war technologies like drones as a more symmetrical and moral option than the
asymmetrical killing of innocent citizens. While some consider the use of such technologies as

4
HISTORY ESSAY
immoral because these might be used for personal gains, others find this moral as it could incur
the least damage. These arguments clearly demonstrate that the concept of “just war” and the
tenet of morality and faith have fallen by the wayside in the centuries that followed Augustine’s
introduction to these.

5
HISTORY ESSAY
References:
Calhoun, L. (2001). The metaethical paradox of Just War theory. Ethical Theory and Moral
Practice, 4(1), 41-58.
Newadvent.org. (2019). CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 189 (St. Augustine). Retrieved from
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102189.htm
Nsarchive2.gwu.edu. (2019). Memorandum of Conversation. Retrieved from
https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/nukevault/special/doc07.pdf
Schulzke, M. (2016). The morality of remote warfare: Against the asymmetry objection to
remote weaponry. Political Studies, 64(1), 90-105.