Summary

The study of deterrence has been embedded in national security educational curriculum for decades, be it academic or professional military education. However, not all syllabi and course material provide the same lessons and paradigms on deterrence and nuclear decision-making education. This is dependent on which side the lecturer sits on their opinion of nuclear weapons and their potential for war. Many know of the “great debate” over the continuation of the nuclear bomb that has been the center of conversation since the end of the Cold War. This “do we or don’t we keep it” question seems to be a consistent tug of war within U.S. congressional conversations and even testimonies, in which members of the military often argue about the importance of keeping and maintaining a nuclear force. Today, especially, this is an important debate subject, given the Russia–Ukraine war and the possibility that tactical nukes could be used if “needed” by Russia. With these concerns, debates, and current events, how can professors educate students on this topic while maintaining a fair, balanced, and impartial perspective? There needs to be an impartial approach to teaching students, both academic and military, from a neutral mindset. Curriculum on deterrence and nuclear politics must highlight the importance of addressing the historical aspects of deterrence and nuclear ambitions while introducing new and emerging concepts that have found their way into literature and application. Additionally, curriculum needs to cover the impact of nuclear weapons, and how it can negatively influence strategy and even the path toward peace.