"National interest," concedes Bernard Brodie, "are not fixed by nature nor are identifiable by any generally acceptable standard of objective criteri… - S. K. Malik

With the invention of the atomic weapons, there appeared, between 1945 and 1955, a class of strategists who looked upon the nuclear bomb as the 'absolute' weapon of war. Accordingly, they formulated the theory of the strategy of , best described by the similitude of 'two scorpions in a bottle', a metaphor coined by J. Robert Oppenheimer. With further developments in nuclear bombs and greater knowledge of their effects came Dulles' theory of massive nuclear retaliation enunciated in 1954 and Mcnamara's flexible response. This was followed by other schools of thought hovering round graduated deterrence, second strike capability and the oceanic system. In 1959, denounced the theory of the 'balance of terror'. His thesis was that a deterrent force existed only if it was capable of inflicting reprisals. He laid down a set of six conditions for a second strike capability and came to conclude that the United States possessed none of them at that time. Dr. Henry Kissinger, in his famous book, 'Necessity for Choice' embraced the new gospel of s and introduced the element of 'credibility' to 'deterrence'. "Deterrence," he wrote, "requires a combination of power, the will to use it, and the assessment of these by the potential aggressor." Since 1960, deterrence has dominated the realm of strategy in one from or the other; it has been variously described as active and passive; offensive and defensive; direct and indirect; relative and total or absolute; positive and negative; limited and general; counter-force and counter-city, and so on.

When a believer sees that someone is trying to obstruct another believer from travelling on the road that leads to God, spirit of Jihād requires that such a man…be prevented from doing so and the obstacles…be removed, so that mankind may freely be able to negotiate its own path that leads to Heaven. To omit to do this is a culpable omission, if only because we…become passive spectators of the…forces imposing a blockade in the way of those who mean to keep their faith with God. Then ordinary wars which mankind has been fighting for…revenge or securing satisfaction of their desire of getting more land or more booty are not allowed in Islam. This is so because here the rule is, all striving must be for the sake of God….The wars in the theory of Islamic law are in the nature of an undertaking to advance God’s purpose on earth, and invariably they are defensive in character... It is a duty of a believer to carry forward the Message of God and to bring it to the notice of his fellow-men in handsome ways. But if someone attempts to obstruct him from doing so he is entitled, as a measure of defense, to “retaliate.” In other words, a Muslim has the right to fight anyone who stops him for spreading Islam and its message, and that is defined as a defensive measure.... In Islam war is waged to establish supremacy of the Lord only when every other argument has failed to convince those who reject His Will and work against the very purpose of the creation of mankind. Indeed, the person who goes to holy war virtually is offering testimony regarding the paramountcy and supreme authority of God’s law by giving up the most precious thing he has, namely, his life….Indeed the very word “Shahīd” which is roughly taken to mean as a martyr, literally signifies the idea that he has borne testimony as a witness that God’s law is supreme and anyone who attempts to obstruct the progress of those who are taking their path to God will be dealt with sternly—for that is the only way in which to restore and rehabilitate the authority of God on Earth...
Many Western Scholars have pointed their accusing fingers at some of the…verses in the Qur’an….As to them it is sufficient answer to make…that the defiance of God’s authority by one who is His slave exposes that slave to the risk of being held guilty of treason and such a one, in the perspective of Islamic law, is indeed to be treated as a sort of…cancerous growth on that organism of humanity….It thus becomes necessary to remove the cancerous malformation even if it be by surgical means (if it would not respond to other treatment), in order to save the rest of Humanity.

The Quranic philosophy of war is immensely rich in its moral and humanitarian contents. The Book prohibits the Muslims from transgressing the divine limits during the conduct of war. It forbids them from practising the stage and inhuman ways and methods of warfare practised during the Days of Ignorance. Though permitted to follow the Law of Equality and Reciprocity in their dealings with their enemies, the Faithfull are always counselled to prefer restraint and tolerance. Within its permissible purpose and limits, the book does not visualise war being waged with 'kid gloves'. It hives us a distinctive concept of . It wants both, the nation and the individual, to be at war 'in toto', that is, with all their spiritual, moral and physical resources. The Holy Quran lays the highest emphasis on the preparation for war. It wants us to prepare ourselves for war to the utmost. The test of utmost preparation lies in our capability to instill terror into the hearts of the enemies. The ability to strike terror into the enemy or to withstand the enemy attempts to terrorise us are ultimately linked with the strength of our Faith. Practised in their totality, the Quranic dimensions of war provide complete protection to the Muslim armies against any psychological breakdown. On the contrary, weaknesses in our Faith offer inroads to the enemy to launch successful psychological attacks against us. It is on the strength of our Faith, and the weakness of that of our adversary, that we can initiate plans and actions calculated to strike terror into the hearts of our adversaries.