What is the difference between 'counterforce' and 'countervalue' targeting?

The fundamental difference between 'counterforce' and 'countervalue' targeting lies in the types of targets selected for nuclear attack. Counterforce targeting focuses on destroying an adversary's military capabilities, including their nuclear forces (missile silos, submarine bases, airfields), command and control centers, and other military assets. The goal is to reduce the adversary's ability to wage war and limit the damage they can inflict in a retaliatory strike. It aims to disarm the enemy and achieve military dominance. Countervalue targeting, on the other hand, focuses on destroying an adversary's cities, industrial centers, and population. The goal is to inflict unacceptable damage on the adversary's society and economy, thereby deterring them from launching a nuclear attack in the first place or coercing them into ending a conflict. It aims to punish the enemy and destroy their will to fight. For example, a counterforce strike might target an adversary's missile silos to prevent them from launching their missiles, while a countervalue strike might target major cities to destroy their industrial base and kill a large portion of their population. These targeting strategies reflect different approaches to nuclear deterrence, with counterforce aiming for military advantage and countervalue aiming for societal devastation. Counterforce is sometimes viewed as less escalatory as it targets military assets, whereas countervalue is viewed as more escalatory due to its targeting of civilian populations and infrastructure.