What distinguishes Counterforce targeting strategy from Assured Destruction?

The key distinction between Counterforce and Assured Destruction targeting strategies lies in the types of targets that are prioritized for nuclear attack. Assured Destruction aims to deter a nuclear attack by threatening to retaliate against an adversary's cities, industrial centers, and population. The goal is to inflict 'unacceptable damage' that outweighs any potential gains from launching a first strike. This strategy focuses on maximizing civilian casualties and economic disruption in the event of a nuclear war. Counterforce, on the other hand, targets an adversary's military forces and command and control infrastructure. This includes missile silos, airbases, submarine bases, nuclear storage facilities, and leadership bunkers. The goal of Counterforce is to reduce the adversary's ability to launch a retaliatory strike and to limit the damage that they could inflict. This strategy focuses on destroying the adversary's nuclear arsenal and command structure. Counterforce strategies are often seen as more escalatory than Assured Destruction, as they could provoke a preemptive strike by the adversary who fears losing their nuclear forces. However, proponents of Counterforce argue that it is a more moral strategy because it seeks to minimize civilian casualties. Assured Destruction is considered a more stable deterrent, but it also raises ethical questions about the deliberate targeting of civilian populations. The choice between Counterforce and Assured Destruction depends on a variety of factors, including a country's strategic goals, its technological capabilities, and its assessment of the adversary's intentions.