The Cold War outcome does not prove deterrence worked

Evidence

Many have made similarly questionable arguments in stating that the outcome of the Cold War proves the effectiveness of deterrence. Demolishing such conclusions, the international relations scholar Steve Chan writes: … Was the U.S. deterrence against the USSR effective? That Moscow did not attack Western Europe might have been because of the effectiveness of this U.S. deterrence. It could also be that Moscow never had any intention of launching such an attack, or that it might have been dissuaded from carrying out such an attack by its economic weakness, dissension among its leaders, concern for a challenge from China, or some other reason. Thus, one needs to guard against spurious inferences, giving credit to deterrence for keeping peace and stability when this policy does not quite deserve such credit. — David Vine, Base Nation_ How U.S. Military Bases…, 1042

Categorization

• QUESTION: The attribution problem Chan raises — many rival causes could explain the absence of Soviet attack — is a model for evaluating any historical claim about deterrence.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — David Vine, Base Nation_ How U.S. Military Bases…, 1042
• XREF: connects to: Deterrence research finds no consensus on variables that predict effectiveness.; Deterrence theory rests on flawed assumptions and misrepresented history.; Weapons work primarily as deterrents that prevent fights rather than win them — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 966 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Weapons work primarily as deterrents that prevent fights rather than win them #qualifies (0.70) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 966
• Nuclear weapons grew cheaper as they proliferated, undermining deterrence #qualifies (0.50) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 602