Countervalue

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed. (February 2010) This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Countervalue" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (February 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (February 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In military doctrine, countervalue is the targeting of an opponent's assets that are of value but not actually a military threat, such as cities and civilian populations. Counterforce is the targeting of an opponent's military forces and facilities.^[1][2] The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., records the first use of the word in 1660 and the first use in the modern sense in 1965 in which it is described as a "euphemism for attacking cities".

Theory

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

In

bombing of civilian populations and other targets that were not directly military.

The rationale behind countervalue targeting is that if two sides have both achieved

with nuclear weapons against an opponent's countervalue targets, such an attack, by definition, does not degrade its opponent's military capacity to retaliate. The opposing view counters that countervalue targeting is neither moral nor credible because, if an aggressor strikes first with nuclear weapons against only a limited number of a defender's counterforce military targets, the defender should not retaliate in this situation against the aggressor's civilian populace, as this would likely constitute a major escalation of such a conflict. However, another position is that because the aggressor starts the conflict, it should not be treated with a "gloves-on" approach (i.e., severity of retaliation should not be reduced deliberately to avoid escalation), which would give a further incentive to be an aggressor, or produce a presumptively weaker deterrent effect.

Use in modern warfare

Countervalue operations are a standard part of Russian military doctrine,^[3] in particular the shelling of cities and civilian populations with rocket and conventional artillery.^[4] Russian countervalue operations in Ukraine have led to international condemnation.^[5] The attack on the Nord Stream pipelines, blamed by some western sources on Russia, is considered a countervalue attack on EU infrastructure.^[6]

International law

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2014) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The intentional targeting of civilians with military force, such as nuclear weapons, is prohibited by

; and other cities.

See also

• First strike (nuclear strategy)
• Second strike
• Counterforce
• Mutually Assured Destruction
• Deterrence theory
• Peace through strength
• Balance of terror
• Balance of power in international relations
• Revenge
• Scorched earth

References