> That's why 'deterrence' is understood to be nuclear.
“Deterrence” is not generally limited to nuclear deterrence, though there are contexts where that is implied.
One of the functions of the conventional forces being deployed to NATO’s eastern flank in the present crisis is deterrence, of the non-nuclear variety.
(Putin’s reference to “deterrent forces” given the context of recent highly publicized nuclear high alert and other circumstances pretty clearly implies strategic nuclear forces, but you are way overgeneralizing.)
“Deterrence” is not generally limited to nuclear deterrence, though there are contexts where that is implied.
One of the functions of the conventional forces being deployed to NATO’s eastern flank in the present crisis is deterrence, of the non-nuclear variety.
(Putin’s reference to “deterrent forces” given the context of recent highly publicized nuclear high alert and other circumstances pretty clearly implies strategic nuclear forces, but you are way overgeneralizing.)