Skip to main content

De-escalatory Confidence-Building Measures and US Nuclear Operations

  • Chapter
The De-escalation of Nuclear Crises
  • 124 Accesses

Abstract

As long as the United States and other nations maintain nuclear arsenals, one or more nuclear powers might feel obliged to put their nuclear forces on alert in a serious crisis. It might result from a direct, serious confrontation between nuclear powers, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis. Alternatively, a nuclear power might alert its nuclear forces to ‘demonstrate resolve’ and influence the course of a peripheral conflict, as the United States did in the 1973 Middle East War. In either case, unless the nuclear powers involved actually do go to war, they eventually need to be able to stand down from their nuclear alerts in a safe, graceful way that does not exacerbate or actually precipitate a nuclear confrontation.

Invulnerability is the best confidence building measure.

Andy Aldrin, The RAND Corporation

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

Access this chapter

eBook
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. See, for example, Herman Kahn’s discussion of the First World War and possible future analogies in Herman Kahn, On Thermonuclear War, 1969 Second Edition (New York: Free Press), pp. 357–75.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bruce G. Blair, ‘Alerting in Crisis and Conventional War’, in Ashton B. Carter, et al. (eds), Managing Nuclear Operations (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution 1987), pp. 75–120.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Scott D. Sagan, ‘Nuclear Alerts and Crisis Management’, International Security Vol. 9, no. 4, Spring 1985, pp. 102–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Some Genie-related incidents occurred during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Scott D. Sagan, ‘Accidents at the Brink: the Operational Dimensions of Crisis Stability’, unpublished paper, February 1989, pp. 26–9.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Henry Kissinger, Years of Upheaval (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1982), pp. 587–9.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barry M. Blechman and Douglas M. Hart, ‘The Political Utility of Nuclear Weapons: The 1973 Middle East Crisis’, International Security Vol. 7, no. 1, Spring 1982, pp. 132–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. For a description of the operational concept of Rail Garrison Peacekeeper, see Barry E. Fridling and John R. Harvey, ‘On the Wrong Track? An Assessment of MX Rail Garrison Basing’, International Security Vol. 13, no. 3, Winter 1988/1989, pp. 113–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. For a succinct description of the SICBM system concept, see Donald A. Hicks, ‘ICBM Modernization: Consider the Alternatives’, International Security, Vol. 12, no. 2, Fall, 1987, pp. 177–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. William M. Arkin and Richard W. Fieldhouse, Nuclear Battlefields: Global Links in the Arms Race (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1985), p. 45 and

    Google Scholar 

  10. Congressional Budget Office (CBO), ‘Modernizing U.S. Strategic Offensive Forces: Costs, Effects and Alternatives’, November 1987, p. 72.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Donald B. Cotter, ‘Peacetime Operations: Safety and Security’, in Carter et al. 1987, op. cit., p. 50.

    Google Scholar 

  12. The seminal work in the open literature on US strategic Cs, its vulnerabilities, and their ramifications is Bruce G. Blair, Strategic Command and Control: Redefining the Nuclear Threat (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1985). Another classic is

    Google Scholar 

  13. Paul Bracken, The Command and Control of Nuclear Forces (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  14. See the discussion Soviet incentives for and moves toward a far forward air defense in James T. Quinlivan, Soviet Strategic Air Defense: A Long Past and an Uncertain Future, RAND P-7579, September 1989, pp. 21–4.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See Joseph Nation, The Utility ofDeEscalatory Confidence-Building Measures P-7571, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, June 1989 and Alan J. Vick and James A. Thomson, The Military Significance of Restrictions on Strategic Nuclear Force Operations. N-2113-FF, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, April 1984.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Joseph E. Nation

Copyright information

© 1992 Joseph E. Nation

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Buchan, G.C. (1992). De-escalatory Confidence-Building Measures and US Nuclear Operations. In: Nation, J.E. (eds) The De-escalation of Nuclear Crises. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-12734-4_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics