Skip to main content

The Status of Deterrence: Start and other Factors

  • Chapter

Abstract

Nuclear deterrence and US nuclear strategy entered some time ago what is at once an intellectual stagnation and a political crisis. Until recently there has been little prospect that new ideas would emerge to help resolve what had become telling faults in the edifice of traditional deterrence theory and practice. While public concern with nuclear weapons remained significant, the threat of war had receded enough so that popularly forced radical change seemed unlikely.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

eBook
USD   19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Andrew Goldberg, project director, Securing Strategic Stability (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, December 1988), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Richard K. Betts, Cruise Missiles and U.S. Policy (Washington, DC: Brookings, 1982), p. 11.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Edward L. Warner III and David Ochmanek, Next Moves: An Arms Control Agenda for the 1990s (New York: Council on Foreign Relations. 1989). p.24n.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Max M. Kampelman, ‘START: Completing the Task’, The Washington Quarterly 1 (Summer 1989), 7

    Google Scholar 

  5. See, for example, Peter DeLeon, The Altered Strategic Environment Toward the Year 2000 (Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Co., 1987), pp. 59–66, and Michael Howard, ‘The Forgotten Dimensions of Strategy’, Foreign Affairs 57 (Summer 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Philip Bobbitt, Democracy and Deterrence: The History and Future of Nuclear Strategy (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1988), pp. 110, 284.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Market Opinion Research, Marttila and Kiley Inc., et al., Americans Talk Security, Full Survey Report. No publication location, various dates. The figures come from No. 9, October 1988; the quotation is from No. 6, June 1988, p. 41. Emphasis mine.

    Google Scholar 

  8. For good summaries of the issue, see DeLeon, The Altered Strategic Environment, pp. 7–25; and Thomas Powers, ‘Nuclear Winter and Nuclear Strategy’, The Atlantic 254 (November 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Herbert A. Simon, ‘Mutual Deterrence and Nuclear Suicide’, Science 23 (4 February 1984), 775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Klaus Knorr, On The Uses of Military Power in the Nuclear Age (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1966), p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  11. John Mueller, Retreat From Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War (New York: Basic Books, 1989), pp. 59–60.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Robert Jervis, ‘The Nuclear Revolution and the Common Defense’, Political Science Quarterly 101 (1986), 689, 694.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Edward L. Warner and David Ochmanek, Next Moves: An Arms Control Agenda for the 1990s (New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 1989), p. 19.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Robert Jervis, ‘Strategic Theory: What’s New and What’s True’, Journal of Strategic Studies 9 (December 1986), 158–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Copyright information

© 1991 Michael J. Mazarr

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mazarr, M.J. (1991). The Status of Deterrence: Start and other Factors. In: Start and the Future of Deterrence. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-11524-2_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics