Advertisement

Deterrence: A Political and Psychological Critique

  • Richard Ned LebowEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Pioneers in Arts, Humanities, Science, Engineering, Practice book series (PAHSEP, volume 4)

Abstract

Postwar American security policy was built on a foundation of deterrence. In the early Cold War period, American leaders relied on nuclear deterrence to discourage Soviet or Chinese attacks against American allies in Western Europe and the Far East. When these countries developed the means to launch intercontinental nuclear attacks of their own, the United States counted on deterrence to prevent an attack against itself. Over the years, successive American administrations have also attempted to use deterrence to moderate the policies of Third World states with which the United States or its allies have come into conflict. Partisans of deterrence assert that it has kept the peace between the superpowers and has been useful in managing lesser conflicts. This chapter disputes both claims.

When discussing deterrence it is important to distinguish between the theory of deterrence and the strategy of deterrence. The former pertains to the logical postulates of deterrence and the assumptions on which they are based. Put succinctly, deterrence is an attempt to influence another actor’s assessment of its interests. It seeks to prevent an undesired behavior by convincing the party who may be contemplating it that the cost will exceed any possible gain. Deterrence presupposes that decisions are made in response to some kind of rational cost-benefit calculus, that this calculus can be successfully manipulated from the outside, and that the best way to do this is to increase the cost side of the ledger. Different scholars have developed their own variants of deterrence theory. All of them, however, are based on these assumptions.

Deterrence strategy is concerned with applying the theory of deterrence to real world conflicts. It has given rise to its own body of theory about how this is best accomplished. The first wave of this theory, almost entirely deductive in nature, was developed in the 1950s and 1960s by such scholars as Brodie (1959), Kaufman (1954), and Schelling (1966). Most of these works stressed the importance of imparting credibility to commitments and explored various mechanisms leaders could exploit toward this end. The literature of this period is often referred to as classical deterrence theory (Jervis 1979).

Keywords

Wishful Thinking Soviet Leader Deterrence Theory Deterrence Strategy Nuclear Deterrence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abel, E., 1966. The Missile Crisis. Philadelphia: Lippincott, p. 28.Google Scholar
  2. Achen, C. H., and Snidal, D., 1988. Rational deterrence theory and comparative case studies. World Politics, fall.Google Scholar
  3. Allison, G., 1971. Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, Boston: Little, Brown, pp. 52–56, 237–44.Google Scholar
  4. Borg, D., and Okamoto, S., eds., 1973. Pearl Harbor as History: Japanese- American Relations, 1931–1941, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Brodie, B., 1959. The anatomy of deterrence. World Politics 11 (January): 173–92.Google Scholar
  6. Burlatsky, F., 1987a. The Caribbean crisis and its lessons. Literaturnaya Gazeta 11 November 1987:14.Google Scholar
  7. Burlatsky, F., 1987b. Proceedings of the Cambridge Conference on the Cuban Missile Crisis, Cambridge, Mass.: 11–12 October 1987, mimeograph.Google Scholar
  8. Butow, R., 1961. To jo and the Coming of the War. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. George, A. L., and Smoke, R., 1974. Deterrence in American Foreign Policy: Theory and Practice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gromyko, A. A., 1971. The Caribbean crisis, 2 parts. Voprosy istorii Nos. 4 & 8, English translation in Ronald R. Pope, Soviet Views on the Cuban Crisis: Myth and Reality in Foreign Policy Analysis. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1982: pp. 161–226.Google Scholar
  11. Heller, M. A., 1984. The I ran-Iraq War: Implications for Third Parties. JCSS Paper No. 23. Tel Aviv and Cambridge: Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies and Harvard University Center for International Affairs.Google Scholar
  12. Hilsman, R., 1967. To Move a Nation. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, pp. 164, 200–20.Google Scholar
  13. Horelick, A., and Rush, M., 1966. Strategic Power and Soviet Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, p. 141.Google Scholar
  14. Hosoya, C., 1968. Miscalculation in deterrence policy: Japanese—U.S. relations, 1938–1941, Journal of Peace Research 2:79–115.Google Scholar
  15. Huth, P., and Russett, B., 1984. What makes deterrence work? Cases from 1900 to 1980. World Politics 36(July (4):496–526.Google Scholar
  16. Ienaga, S., 1978. The Pacific War, 1931–1945. New York. Pantheon.Google Scholar
  17. Ike, N. 1967. Japan’s Decisison for War, Records of 1941: Policy Conferences. Stanford, Calif.; Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Janis, I., and Mann, L., 1977. Decision Making: A psychological Analysis of Conflict, Choice, and Commitment. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jervis, R., 1979. Deterrence theory revisited. World Politics 31(January):289–324.Google Scholar
  20. Jervis. R., Lebow, R. N., and Stein, J.G., 1985. Psychology and Deterrence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Kaplan, M.A., 1958. The calculus of deterrence. World Politics 11(October):20–44.Google Scholar
  22. Kaufman, M.A., 1954. The Requirements of Deterrence. Princeton, N.J: Center of International Studies.Google Scholar
  23. Kissinger, H.A., 1960. The Necessity of Choice. New York: Harper´, pp. 40–41.Google Scholar
  24. Khrushchev, N.S., 1970, 1974. Khrushchev Remembers. 2 vols. Strobe Talbott. ed. and transl. Boston: Little, Brown, pp. 488–505, 509–14.Google Scholar
  25. Lebow, R.N., 1981. Between Peace and War: The Nature of International Crisis. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press., pp. 26–29, 48-51, 101-228.Google Scholar
  26. Lebow, R.N., 1984. Windows of opportunity: Do states jump through them? International Security 9(Summer):147–86.Google Scholar
  27. Lebow, R.N., 1985. Conclusions. Psychology and Deterrence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press., pp. 204–211.Google Scholar
  28. Lebow, R.N., 1987a. Conventional and nuclear deterrence. Are the lessons transferable? Journal of Social Issues 43(4):171–91.Google Scholar
  29. Lebow, R.N., 1987b. Deterrence failure revisited. International Security 12 (Summer): 197–213.Google Scholar
  30. Lebow, R. N., and Stein J. G., 1987a. Beyond deterrence. Journal of Social Issues 43(4):5–71.Google Scholar
  31. Lebow, R.N., and Stein J. G., 1987b. Beyond deterrence: Building better theory. Journal of Social Issues 43(4): 155–69.Google Scholar
  32. Lebow, R.N., and Stein J. G., 1994 We All Lost the Cold War. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. McNamara, R., 1987. Proceedings of the Cambridge Conference on the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cambridge, Mass.: 11–12 October 1987. mimeograph.Google Scholar
  34. Mikoyan, S., 1987. Proceedings of the Cambridge Conference on the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cambridge, Mass.: 11–12 October 1987. mimeograph.Google Scholar
  35. Milburn, T.W., 1959. What constitutes effective deterrence? Journal of Conflict Resolution 3(June):138–46.Google Scholar
  36. Orme, J., 1987. Deterrence failures: a second look. International Security (Spring):16–124.Google Scholar
  37. Quester, G., 1966. Deterrence Before Hiroshima: The Airpower Background to Modern Strategy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  38. Russett, B., 1967. Pearl Harbor: Deterrence theory and decision theory. Journal of Peace Research 4(2):89–105.Google Scholar
  39. Schelling, T., 1966. Arms and Influence. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, p. 374.Google Scholar
  40. Shaknazarov, G., 1987. Proceedings of the Cambridge Conference on the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cambridge, Mass.: 11–12 October 1987, mimeograph.Google Scholar
  41. Snyder, J., 1985. Perceptions of the security dilemma in 1914. In R. Jervis, R. N. Lebow, and J. G. Stein, eds., Psychology and Deterrence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 153–79.Google Scholar
  42. Snyder, G. H., and Diesing, P., 1977. Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making and System Structure in International Crisis. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Stein, J. G., 1985a. Calculation, miscalculation, and conventional deterrence I: The view from Cairo. In R. Jervis, R. N. Lebow, and J. G. Stein, eds., Psychology and Deterrence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 34–59.Google Scholar
  44. Stein, J. G., 1985b. Calculation, miscalculation, and conventional deterrence II: The view from Jerusalem. In R. Jervis, R. N. Lebow, and J. G. Stein, eds., Psychology and Deterrence. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 60–88.Google Scholar
  45. Tatu, M., 1968. Power in the Kremlin: From Khrushchev’s Decline to Collective Leadership, trans. by H. Katel. London: Collins.Google Scholar
  46. Tetlock, P. E. 1987. Testing deterrence theory: Some conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Social Issues 43(4):85–92.Google Scholar
  47. Tripp, C., 1986. Iraq—ambitions checked. Survival 28 (November–December):495–508.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of War StudiesKing’s College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations