Bargaining and Escalation

Abstract

At the centre of the strategy of stable conflict was the concept of incomplete antagonism. The prospect of an all-engulfing nuclear war reminded the super-powers that they should not push their differences over ideology and geopolitical interests too far. The issue was how far was too far. Arms control was concerned with preventing any sort of war, but an armed clash could not be ruled out. Would it be possible at low levels of violence for the shared interest in avoiding the most extreme form of military collision to continue to govern the resolution of the conflict? The question aroused mixed anxieties. If a war came, something other than the uninhibited release of all nuclear arsenals would be preferable, but knowledge that war-fighting would lead to something less than a complete disaster could make it more tempting for an aggressor. Moreover, a desire to limit the use of nuclear weapons could work to the advantage of the combatant with the strongest conventional capabilities — the USSR.