The PDA have as the first point in their description of what security apparatus of the nation the following: "Guarantee reliable, cost-effective defense against aggression."

In the end there is no fool-proof defense against aggression. If somewhat wants to attack the US badly enough they will. Only massive consequences will serve as a real deterent. They clearly hope that by wishing it was so, the UN will make all the bad people sit down and play nice.

A worthy goal, but one with no chance of success.
 

MM,

True. They are Left-centrist so they hew toward Liberal Internationalism, not Realpolitik.

Massive deterrence depends upon a few of aspects:

a) Discerning what the other side considers to be an unacceptable cost

b)Communicating a willingness to inflict such costs with credibility

c)Rationality and reasonably clear perception on the other side

At times preemption might be better. Or constructive engagement. Depends on the scenario.
 

Massive deterrence is not always the best or first option but having it might mean never having to use it.

MAD worked during the Cold War. I was expensive but the world did not end and thus was a good investment.
 

Agreed.