THE DOCTRINE OF «CONTAINMENT» IN THE TERMINOLOGY OF THE NUCLEAR-MISSILE PROGRAMS OF THE LEADING COUNTRIES OF THE WORLD

Abstract

The article examines the positions of scientists on the doctrine of "containment" in the terminological apparatus of nuclear missile programs of the leading countries of the world, identifies controversial aspects in the conceptual and theoretical approaches of scientists and analysis of their argumentation.

The study used an interdisciplinary methodology, which used the following set of methods: doctrinal method, which provided an opportunity to analyze research on the assessment of the doctrine of "deterrence" in the terminology of nuclear missile programs of leading countries, to distinguish common and distinctive problems; historical-political method, which made it possible to consider the genesis of the doctrine of "deterrence" in the terminological apparatus of nuclear missile programs of various nuclear states, both those that have the status of legal carriers of nuclear missiles and the status of illegal states (legalized) with nuclear missiles arsenal; comparative method, which was used to compare the characteristics of the doctrine of «deterrence» in the terminology of nuclear missile programs of states such as the United States, the Russian Federation, Britain, France and China. The main purpose of this article was a scientific analysis of debatable views in the conceptual and theoretical approaches of scientists and analysis of their arguments, which shows the criteria for differences in the assessments of researchers.It has been proved that in the discussions of scientists, the criterion of unacceptable damage is of key importance in differentiating positions. In the concepts of Western scientists, this criterion determines the damage to the population as a whole and is a justified factor deterring the use of nuclear missile weapons in modern military conflicts. The article shows an alternative to the opinion of researchers who defend the statement about the criterion of unacceptable damage to the enemy's armed forces. It is noted that the methodological aspect is important for understanding this term, which should take into account the interdisciplinarity of the problem under study.