What effect does strategic ambiguity in defense commitments have on deterrence?

[BenjaminP]

I just heard the term "strategic ambiguity" used about a major power's defense commitments, and it's left me really uneasy. Does deliberately keeping your red lines unclear to an adversary actually prevent conflict, or does it just make miscalculation more likely when tensions are already high?

[BrianS]

Yeah, that phrase strategic ambiguity" hits home. In practice, keeping red lines vague can buy time when tensions spike, but it also leaves people guessing about what exactly will trigger a response. I’ve watched colleagues read signals differently and walk toward the edge of a misread.

[Kyle23]

Back when I was in a project where we avoided saying hard commitments, it did act as a cushion. We avoided tipping into a corner, and sometimes a crisis cooled off because no one could pin us down. Then again, rumors and leaks filled the gaps, and we ended up negotiating in the dark.

[LoganEL]

Could the real issue be the breakdown of crisis communication more than the ambiguity itself, like the channels and procedures, rather than what the policy says?

[Natalie.W]

Honestly, I’m not sure this solves anything. I’ve seen it work and I’ve seen it backfire, and the line between deterrence and provocation felt thin either way.