Deterrence as a Way to Keep the Conflict Deterrence is defined as a threat given by one nation to take destructive actions towards another, in response to the latter’s potential or promised action, where the two nations are in a political rivalry. In simpler terms, it is the promised retaliatory actions that are more destructive than the initial actions. In this case therefore, both nations are expected to act as though they really mean to carry out the threats, making the other believe that their actions might harm them more owing to the planned retaliation 1 . This theory was used against the US states during its invasion in the gulf war, a step that was intended to make them withdraw their troupes from the region. In international relations, deterrence is considered to be the most viable way of dealing with conflicts. The gulf war is believed to have come up as a result of deterrence whereby the US issued threats towards the Iraq government and vice versa 2 . Despite this, it is also true that some very destructive attacks were also hindered by the same. This is in the sense that as most people believe it prevented the then president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein from using nuclear weapons against the US. Most scholars perceive that he knew the US had the weapons and technology required to retaliate effectively. In this sense, it can be argued that deterrence proved a viable tool and this is only so when one of the parties in conflict knows that retaliatory attacks from the other party can be fatal. Therefore this is only a special case, where deterrence is given credit. In other cases, it can lead to serious losses to both parties. This happens when none of the parties wants to be on the losing side. No one would ever want to be known for issuing empty threats and this explains why most countries have taken to war knowing very well that it will have adverse effects to the country 3 . The Prisoners’ Dilemma Theory In the discussion of deterrence, it is important to consider it in the light of the prisoners’ dilemma theory. This is a model that has two people caught in a crime together and being tried differently. If one of the prisoners confesses, he gets freedom and the other one gets heavy punishment. If they both confess, they both get heavy punishment, and so this is out of question. The other option is where both deny the crime and they get light punishment each. This scenario is likened to deterrence since in both cases; one does not know what the other party is thinking. One might decide to withdraw the threats but the opponent pushes on with the attack plans causing more losses to the other party. Where deterrence is in place, both parties will definitely be afraid to act especially where they have no idea of the extent that the other party can go to protect itself and retaliate. From this therefore, a conclusion can be drawn that deterrence is a viable concept in international relations. It has its disadvantages but the advantages seem to outweigh the disadvantages. These threats have worked in some cases where the attackers are delayed by retaliatory threats. This delay allows the international community to come up with strategies of preventing the situation if possible, or how to handle the consequences should the attack take place. There are however few cases where deterrence ha