DOCSLIB.ORG

Copyright by Jonathan Reid Hunt 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Copyright by Jonathan Reid Hunt 2013 The Dissertation Committee for Jonathan Reid Hunt Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Into the Bargain: The Triumph and Tragedy of Nuclear Internationalism during the Mid-Cold War, 1958-1970 Committee: Henry W. Brands, Supervisor Mark A. Lawrence, Co-Supervisor Francis J. Gavin Bruce J. Hunt Charters S. Wynn Jeremi Suri Into the Bargain: The Triumph and Tragedy of Nuclear Internationalism during the mid-Cold War, 1958-1970 by Jonathan Reid Hunt, B.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin December 2013 Dedication To my parents, Thomas and Laurie Hunt, and my brother, Tommy, whom I cherish, and whose unconditional support and passion for learning have lighted my path even when my candle burned low. Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. --Russell-Einstein Manifesto, 1955 Acknowledgements At this moment, I cannot help but think back to all those who made this work of scholarship possible. I am struck not only by how instrumental they have been, but how they have constantly made this journey as entertaining as it was challenging and rewarding. When I arrived in the Department of History at the University of Texas at Austin, I had only the faintest idea of what I wanted to study, and an even fainter appreciation for what academic history demanded. I was fortunate to find myself among a cohort of passionate fellow graduate students and under the tutelage of a faculty of warm, patient, and dedicated scholars. Professor H. W. Brands has been a constant ally and inspiration during my coursework and subsequent scholarly peregrinations. He taught me to think critically, speak immaculately, and put pen to paper like a working writer. I joked years ago that I hoped to finish my dissertation before Bill published another five books. I am relieved not to have put any money down on that bet. Professor Mark Atwood Lawrence was on sabbatical my first two years at UT-Austin. I remain thankful that when he returned I took his course on the new international history, which exposed me to a field in the midst of a revolution and inspired me to shift gears from United States domestic history to the history of American foreign relations. Mark was kind enough to serve as my co-advisor and to introduce me to his friend and colleague Professor Francis J. Gavin. Frank’s passion for the international history of nuclear strategy, diplomacy, and statecraft mirror my own. His unflagging encouragement and dependably sound advice helped me to conceptualize how to approach my subjects. His readiness in welcoming me with open arms to the Lyndon Baines Johnson School of Public Policy and the Strauss Center for International Security and Law will not be forgotten. Alas, Professor Jeremi v Suri arrived after I had departed Austin to hide away in various archives around the world. Yet, from the moment I met him at a conference at Oxford, through his on- campus meeting with graduate students, to dropping by his office when I was in town, his enthusiasm has been undeniable and infectious. Professor Bruce Hunt deserves plaudits for putting up with an interloper in the laboratory of the history of science and technology. As for Professor Charters Wynn, he has the honor of having inspired a young undergraduate to pursue history as a career during an unforgettable course on Stalin’s Russia at War. The professors who make the Normandy Scholar Program that rare experience capable of transforming how students imagine themselves and their world deserve more than mention. Along with Charters, Professors Michael Stoff, David Crew, Jean-Pierre Cauvin, and François de Backer made the spring semester of my sophomore year a life-changing adventure. I wish I had more time to thank the other professors who took a young doctoral student under their wings and turned him into a scholar of history and a writer capable of short, precise, purposeful sentences. In this hall of merit belong: Robert Abzug, the late Elspeth Rostow, Joan Neuberger, James Sidbury, Laurie Green, David Oshinsky, Steven Hoelscher, Tracy Matysik, Mark Metzler, George Forgie, Wm. Roger Louis, and the inimitable Antony Hopkins. I must also thank Marilyn Lehman for much good advice, many enjoyable conversations, and a willingness to help a remote graduate student deliver his request for an oral examination to the Tower. The most pleasant surprise I encountered in graduate school was that one learns as much, if not more, from one’s fellow graduate students as from one’s professors. I was therefore doubly fortunate that our cohort of young scholars of international history and the annals of United States foreign policy was so exceptional and close-knit. Suffice it to say, my sincerest thanks and best wishes in their professional and personal journeys go to: Chris Dietrich, Marc William Palen, Brian McNeil, Tanvi Madan, Michelle Reeves, vi Eleanor Douglas, Brett Bennett, Joseph Parrot, Renny Keller, Sean Killen, Trevor Simmons, Helen Pho, Peter Hamilton, John Vurpillat, Megan Reiss, Bob Whitaker, and Aragorn Storm Miller. I have patterned my scholarship and hopefully my career after Chris’s example, and learned never to try to outdo Marc when quoting Arrested Development, nor stump Brett when it came to French wine. Brian kept me grounded at critical moments, leavening many a stressful time with talk of the comparative demerits (on the football field) of Alabama and Texas A&M. The rest of the community in Garrison Hall, the 40 Acres, and beyond who made my years in Austin memorable included: Benjamin Breen, Rachel Herrmann, Yana Skorobogatov, James Hudson, Cameron Strang, Juandrea Bates, Felipo Cruz, Christopher Heaney, Chesty Miller, Julie Odgen, Claudia Rueda, Mehmet Celik, Lior Sternfeld, Pablo Mijangos, Alexis Harasemovitch-Truax, Michael Schmidt, Angela Smith, Sundara Vadlamudi, Dolph Briscoe, Bill Chriss, Robert Icenhauer-Ramirez, Sarah Steinbock-Pratt, Shannon Nagy, Tom Josephson, Rachel Ozanne, Matt Powers, Kyle Shelton, Jessica Shore, Michelle Brock, John Harney, Dan Wold, Ryan Field, James Jenkins, Amber Abbas, Emily Brownell, Jesse Cromwell, Matt Gildner, Bryan Glass, and Jennifer Hoyt. And all hail the Subalterns. I was lucky enough to benefit from wide-ranging and consistent support from my department, the university, and external sponsors as well, who together made my dissertation immeasurably better by permitting me to conduct research widely and thoroughly. The department was kind enough to bestow not one, but two, summer dissertation fellowships as well as the John D. Curtis Endowed Graduate Fellowship in American History. The Center for European Studies at the University of Texas afforded me a year of training in French and a year of research in Europe to explore the trans- Atlantic compass of my inquiry. The Society for Historians of American Foreign vii Relations saw fit to award me a Samuel Flagg Bemis Dissertation Research Grant. The George C. Marshall Foundation’s provision of a George C. Marshall/Baruch Research Fellowship rather fittingly funded my research in the William C. Foster papers at the George C. Marshall Library in Lexington, Virginia. Research grants from the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Archives and the Dwight D. Eisenhower Presidential Library and Archives brought me to Boston, Massachusetts and Abilene, Kansas for respective stints. The George F. Keenan Institute for Advanced Russian Studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars proved the ideal setting in which to refocus my doctoral research on the making of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Finally, the Archer Center Graduate Program in Public Policy in Washington, D.C. gave me the opportunity and the support to spend the summer of 2011 in the nation’s capital working for the International Green Cross and familiarizing myself with the inner workings of policy and life inside the Beltway. Paul Walker, the director of the Security and Sustainability Program at the International Green Cross, was a patient mentor for a historian learning how policy is made on a day-to-day basis and re-learning how to meet daily deadlines. He was also the model co-author. Without him, I would never have published my first article in The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Sally Lemmon, Don Arbuckle, and Katie Cook Romano were wonderful guides and I will forever cherish my summer spent in the Archer House with Alice Post, Ashley Horton, Ben Sigrin, Brady Franks, Brandon Hunter, Courtney Tyne, Davi Kallmann, Garrett Coles, Jessica Beemer, Kenisha Schuster, Manny Gonzalez, Maria Islam-Meredith, Mauricio Leone, Rian Carkhum, and Zareen Khan. I was the proud and charmed beneficiary of two dissertation-writing year fellowships. The Dwight D. Eisenhower Institute at Gettysburg College awarded me the Dwight D. Eisenhower/Clifford Roberts Fellowship in 2011-2012, which freed me to viii spend my time exclusively writing the requisite chapters. I was also honored with a Nuclear Security Fellowship from the MacArthur Foundation, which afforded me the peerless opportunity to spend a pre-doctoral year in residence at the Center for International Security and Cooperation in the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University. The senior fellows at CISAC cultivate an intellectual environment that is always warm, always thought-provoking, and profoundly dedicated to the study and refinement of international relations. David Holloway has been a constant beacon, guiding me through the lulls and gales that accompany writing a dissertation. Lynn Eden asks the best questions and I have been as thoroughly challenged to interrogate my hidden assumptions on the fog-wreathed ride back to San Francisco with her as at any seminar.
Recommended publications
  • Stanton Nuclear Security Fellows Seminar

    Stanton Nuclear Security Fellows Seminar

    Stanton Nuclear Security Fellows Seminar PANEL 2: The Uses of History 1. Jonathan Hunt, RAND The Bargain: The United States, Global Nuclear Order, and the Last War, 1956-1975 Objectives: The global nuclear regime is the culmination of efforts to manage nuclear technology internationally. The original meanings of the treaties that inaugurated the regime, which for interpretive purposes have been identified as the 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT), the 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco, which denuclearized Latin America and the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), are rooted in how and why they were first brokered. This book situates these international agreements in their original contexts, most notably the Cold War, decolonization, development and the United Nations. It also advances a historical theory of states’ attitudes toward nuclear weapons and correspondingly proliferation, which holds that a society’s memory of what Philip Bobbitt calls epochal wars and which I style “last wars,” frames how it views the relationship between sovereignty, national security and international order.1 Overview: The world’s states built a global regime to manage the development and dissemination of nuclear weapons from 1956 to 1975, when climbing sales of nuclear reactors and a drumbeat of nuclear crises at hotspots around the world convinced many that multilateral and international measures were needed to manage the atom. Three nuclear powers—the United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom—worked together and within an international community then emerging from decolonization to devise common rules and collective arrangements for nuclear security. Three solutions were identified: a nuclear-test ban, regional pacts to keep nuclear weapons out of certain neighborhoods and a global agreement to forbid new states from acquiring them.
  • Beyond Emboldenment Beyond Mark S

    Beyond Emboldenment Beyond Mark S

    Beyond Emboldenment Beyond Mark S. Bell Emboldenment How Acquiring Nuclear Weapons Can Change Foreign Policy What happens to the foreign policies of states when they acquire nuclear weapons? This question has grown in importance as new nuclear powers have emerged and other states have moved closer to joining the nuclear club. Indeed, determining the costs that the United States and others should be prepared to pay to prevent nuclear proliferation hinges on assessing how nuclear weapons affect the be- havior of the states that acquire them and how dangerous those effects are. If states expand their interests in world politics or act more aggressively in the aftermath of nuclear acquisition, preventing nuclear proliferation should be a higher priority than if nuclear weapons do not signiªcantly affect the for- eign policies of the states that acquire them. Crafting deterrence strategies for new nuclear states also requires understanding the foreign policy effects that nuclear weapons are likely to have in a given case.1 Despite its importance, the question of how nuclear weapons affect the for- eign policies of the states that acquire them has not been satisfactorily an- swered. The literature on nuclear weapons has generally examined the effects of nuclear weapons on outcomes other than foreign policy; has focused on the effects of nuclear weapons on the calculations of other states rather than the acquiring state; and has often sought to explore how states with nuclear weapons should behave rather than how they do behave. The literature that has examined the effects of nuclear weapons on foreign policy has tended to conºate effects of nuclear weapons under catch-all terms such as “em- boldenment” while ignoring other potential effects of nuclear acquisition.
  • TNSR and Discusses the Joys and Pains of the Review Process, Giving Some Advice for Both Reviewers and Those Submitting Their Work for Review

    TNSR and Discusses the Joys and Pains of the Review Process, Giving Some Advice for Both Reviewers and Those Submitting Their Work for Review

    ISSN 2576-1021 ISSN 2576-1153 Print: Online: Texas National Security Review CLARITY & QUAGMIRE Volume 2 Issue 2 MASTHEAD TABLE OF CONTENTS Staff: The Foundation Publisher: Managing Editor: 04 Reviewing Blues Ryan Evans Megan G. Oprea, PhD Assistant Editor: Francis J. Gavin Autumn Brewington Editor-in-Chief: Associate Editors: William Inboden, PhD Galen Jackson, PhD Van Jackson, PhD Stephen Tankel, PhD The Scholar 10 When Do Leaders Change Course? Theories of Success and the American Withdrawal Editorial Board: from Beirut, 1983–1984 Alexandra T. Evans and A. Bradley Potter Chair, Editorial Board: Editor-in-Chief: 40 How to Think About Nuclear Crises Francis J. Gavin, PhD William Inboden, PhD Mark S. Bell and Julia Macdonald Robert J. Art, PhD Beatrice Heuser, PhD Patrick Porter, PhD Richard Betts, PhD Michael C. Horowitz, PhD Thomas Rid, PhD John Bew, PhD Richard H. Immerman, PhD Joshua Rovner, PhD Nigel Biggar, PhD Robert Jervis, PhD Brent E. Sasley, PhD The Strategist Philip Bobbitt, JD, PhD Colin Kahl, PhD Elizabeth N. Saunders, PhD Hal Brands, PhD Jonathan Kirshner, PhD Kori Schake, PhD 68 After the Responsible Stakeholder, What? Debating America’s China Strategy Joshua W. Busby, PhD James Kraska, SJD Michael N. Schmitt, DLitt Hal Brands and Zack Cooper Robert Chesney, JD Stephen D. Krasner, PhD Jacob N. Shapiro, PhD Eliot Cohen, PhD Sarah Kreps, PhD Sandesh Sivakumaran, PhD 82 Crossroads: Counter-terrorism and the Internet Audrey Kurth Cronin, PhD Melvyn P. Leffler, PhD Sarah Snyder, PhD Brian Fishman Theo Farrell, PhD Fredrik Logevall, PhD Bartholomew Sparrow, PhD 102 The End of the End of History: Reimagining U.S.
  • Honours Thesis Game Theory and the Metaphor of Chess in the Late Cold

    Honours Thesis Game Theory and the Metaphor of Chess in the Late Cold

    Honours Thesis Game Theory and the Metaphor of Chess in the late Cold War Period o Student number: 6206468 o Home address: Valeriaan 8 3417 RR Montfoort o Email address: [email protected] o Type of thesis/paper: Honours Thesis o Submission date: March 29, 2020 o Thesis supervisor: Irina Marin ([email protected]) o Number of words: 18.291 o Page numbers: 55 Abstract This thesis discusses how the game of chess has been used as a metaphor for the power politics between the United States of America and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, particularly the period of the Reagan Doctrine (1985-1989). By looking at chess in relation to its visual, symbolic and political meanings, as well in relation to game theory and the key concepts of polarity and power politics, it argues that, although the ‘chess game metaphor’ has been used during the Cold War as a presentation for the international relations between the two superpowers in both cultural and political endeavors, the allegory obscures many nuances of the Cold War. Acknowledgment This thesis has been written roughly from November 2019 to March 2020. It was a long journey, and in the end my own ambition and enthusiasm got the better of me. The fact that I did three other courses at the same time can partly be attributed to this, but in many ways, I should have kept my time-management and planning more in check. Despite this, I enjoyed every moment of writing this thesis, and the subject is still captivating to me.
  • The Fallacy of Nuclear Deterrence

    The Fallacy of Nuclear Deterrence

    THE FALLACY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE LCol J.P.P. Ouellet JCSP 41 PCEMI 41 Exercise Solo Flight Exercice Solo Flight Disclaimer Avertissement Opinions expressed remain those of the author and Les opinons exprimées n’engagent que leurs auteurs do not represent Department of National Defence or et ne reflètent aucunement des politiques du Canadian Forces policy. This paper may not be used Ministère de la Défense nationale ou des Forces without written permission. canadiennes. Ce papier ne peut être reproduit sans autorisation écrite. © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as © Sa Majesté la Reine du Chef du Canada, représentée par represented by the Minister of National Defence, 2015. le ministre de la Défense nationale, 2015. CANADIAN FORCES COLLEGE – COLLÈGE DES FORCES CANADIENNES JCSP 41 – PCEMI 41 2014 – 2015 EXERCISE SOLO FLIGHT – EXERCICE SOLO FLIGHT THE FALLACY OF NUCLEAR DETERRENCE LCol J.P.P. Ouellet “This paper was written by a student “La présente étude a été rédigée par un attending the Canadian Forces College stagiaire du Collège des Forces in fulfilment of one of the requirements canadiennes pour satisfaire à l'une des of the Course of Studies. The paper is a exigences du cours. L'étude est un scholastic document, and thus contains document qui se rapporte au cours et facts and opinions, which the author contient donc des faits et des opinions alone considered appropriate and que seul l'auteur considère appropriés et correct for the subject. It does not convenables au sujet. Elle ne reflète pas necessarily reflect the policy or the nécessairement la politique ou l'opinion opinion of any agency, including the d'un organisme quelconque, y compris le Government of Canada and the gouvernement du Canada et le ministère Canadian Department of National de la Défense nationale du Canada.
  • Dartmouth Conf Program

    Dartmouth Conf Program

    The Dartmouth Conference: The First 50 Years 1960—2010 Reminiscing on the Dartmouth Conference by Yevgeny Primakov T THE PEAK OF THE COLD WAR, and facilitating conditions conducive to A the Dartmouth Conference was one of economic interaction. the few diversions from the spirit of hostility The significance of the Dartmouth Confer- available to Soviet and American intellectuals, ence relates to the fact that throughout the who were keen, and able, to explore peace- cold war, no formal Soviet-American contact making initiatives. In fact, the Dartmouth had been consistently maintained, and that participants reported to huge gap was bridged by Moscow and Washington these meetings. on the progress of their The composition of discussion and, from participants was a pri- time to time, were even mary factor in the success instructed to “test the of those meetings, and it water” regarding ideas took some time before the put forward by their gov- negotiating teams were ernments. The Dartmouth shaped the right way. At meetings were also used first, in the early 1970s, to unfetter actions under- the teams had been led taken by the two countries by professionally quali- from a propagandist connotation and present fied citizens. From the Soviet Union, political them in a more genuine perspective. But the experts and researchers working for the Insti- crucial mission for these meetings was to tute of World Economy and International establish areas of concurring interests and to Relations and the Institute of U.S. and Cana- attempt to outline mutually acceptable solutions dian Studies, organizations closely linked to to the most acute problems: nuclear weapons Soviet policymaking circles, played key roles.
  • H-Diplo/ISSF Roundtable, Vol. 7, No. 2 (2014)

    H-Diplo/ISSF Roundtable, Vol. 7, No. 2 (2014)

    H-Diplo | ISSF Roundtable, Volume VII, No. 2 (2014) A production of H-Diplo with the journals Security Studies, International Security, Journal of Strategic Studies, and the International Studies Association’s Security Studies Section (ISSS). http://www.issforum.org H-Diplo/ISSF Editors: James McAllister and Diane Labrosse H-Diplo/ISSF Roundtable and Web/Production Editor: George Fujii Commissioned for H-Diplo/ISSF by James McAllister Introduction by James McAllister Hal Brands. What Good is Grand Strategy: Power and Purpose in American Statecraft from Harry S. Truman to George W. Bush. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2014. ISBN: 978-0- 8014-5246-8 (hardcover, $29.95). Published by H-Diplo/ISSF on 17 October 2014 Stable URL: http://issforum.org/ISSF/PDF/ISSF-Roundtable-7-2.pdf Contents Introduction by James McAllister, Williams College ................................................................ 2 Review by Francis J. Gavin, MIT ................................................................................................ 4 Review by Steven Metz, U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute ............................ 8 Review by Joshua Rovner, Southern Methodist University .................................................... 11 Author’s Response by Hal Brands, Duke University ............................................................... 18 © Copyright 2014 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. H-Diplo/ISSF Roundtable Reviews, Vol. VII, No. 2
  • Understanding Strategic Interaction in the Second Nuclear Age

    Understanding Strategic Interaction in the Second Nuclear Age

    UNDERSTANDING STRATEGIC INTERACTION IN THE SECOND NUCLEAR AGE THOMAS G. MAHNKEN GILLIAN EVANS TOSHI YOSHIHARA ERIC S. EDELMAN JACK BIANCHI UNDERSTANDING STRATEGIC INTERACTION IN THE SECOND NUCLEAR AGE THOMAS G. MAHNKEN GILLIAN EVANS TOSHI YOSHIHARA ERIC EDELMAN JACK BIANCHI 2019 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2019 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Thomas G. Mahnken is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. He is a Senior Research Professor at the Philip Merrill Center for Strategic Studies at The Johns Hopkins University’s Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) and has served for over 20 years as an officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve, to include tours in Iraq and Kosovo. He currently serves as a member of the Congressionally-mandated National Defense Strategy Commission and as a member of the Board of Visitors of Marine Corps University. His previous government career includes service as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy Planning from 2006–2009, where he helped craft the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review and 2008 National Defense Strategy. He served on the staff of the 2014 National Defense Panel, 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel, and the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.
  • Mar–Apr 2013, Volume 105, Number 4

    Mar–Apr 2013, Volume 105, Number 4

    SEPT–OCT 2011, v OlumE 104, numb Er 1 m E xi CO C i T y … grav E CO n CE rn S … hubbl E SP a CESC a PES … indian ar T … g E r T rud E himm E lfarb mar–a in theatres march 22nd P r 2013 r mar–aPr 2013, v OlumE 105, numb Er 4 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ALUMNI MAGAZINE STREET DATE: FEB/MARCH DUE DATE: 1/22 non-bleed: 6.4375” x 8.825”, 4-Color JANUARY 22, 2013 1:30 PM EST UCH_MAR_APRIL_covers and spine_v4.indd 1 2/25/13 10:40 AM 130315_FocusFeatures_Chicago.indd 1 1/23/13 8:40 AM alumniweekend June –, CELEBRATE EXCEPTIONAL UCHICAGO Register today for Alumni Weekend 2013. • HONOR outstanding achievement at the 72nd Annual Alumni Awards Ceremony. • SHOW YOUR PRIDE in UChicago at the Alumni Parade. • CELEBRATE the academic rigor and challenges that formed your UChicago experience. • REDISCOVER the intellectual destination that is UChicago. Visit alumniweekend.uchicago.edu to register today. uestions? Call 800.955.0065, e-mail [email protected], or visit alumniweekend.uchicago.edu. AlumniIFC_AlumniWeekendAd_4c.indd Weekend Mar-Apr ad_12.11.indd 4 1 2/27/13 11:1811:19 AM Features 32 adrift in the city On walks across Mexico City, historian Mauricio Tenorio Trillo finds a path to the past. By Elizabeth Station 38 decomposure An alumna mortician, medievalist, and video sage tries to change the way Americans think about death. By Michael Washburn, AM’02 46 raised voices The Sahmat collective galvanizes artists across India to create work that Mar–aPr 2013 vOLuME 105, N uMBEr 4 resists divisive politics.
  • Chicken Pax Atomica: the Cold War Stability of Nuclear Deterrence

    Chicken Pax Atomica: the Cold War Stability of Nuclear Deterrence

    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND AREA STUDIES 21 Volume 15, Number 2, 2008, pp.21-39 Chicken Pax Atomica: The Cold War Stability of Nuclear Deterrence James F. Pasley Nuclear weapons, long considered the bête noire of human existence are examined in this article to ascertain if the heinous effects they threaten ultimately serve to promote deterrence between pairs of states. The findings suggest that nuclear weapons did have a significant impact on conflict when present on both sides of dyadic disputes during the Cold War. In such symmetrical nuclear pairs conflict levels are quantitatively shown to be reduced, suggesting that the conflict inhibiting qualities of these weapons long espoused by nuclear optimists are legitimate. Keywords: Cold War, Deterrence, Escalation, Nuclear Weapons, Proliferation “The reputation of power is power.” -- Thomas Hobbes Nuclear weapons promote interstate peace. The statement seems counter-intuitive initially, as the reader grapples with the seemingly divergent concepts of nuclear weaponry and peace. Yet since their creation in 1945 nuclear weapons have not been the bane of human existence many feared they would become. Indeed such weapons have not been used in conflict since the end of World War II and a number of scholars have theorized that the destructive potential displayed by these weapons has ensured peace between the great powers ever since (Gallois 1961; Sandoval 1976; Waltz 1981; Bueno de Mesquita and Riker 1982; Mearsheimer 1990; Weltman 1995). Others are not as sanguine, suggesting that the spread of nuclear weapons is something to be actively and vigorously curtailed (Morgenstern 1959; Ikle 1960; Doty 1960; Nye 1981; Bailey 1991; Spector 1990, 1995; Kraig 1999).
  • Why Are Nuclear Weapons So Appealing to Nation-States in the 21St Century? Written by James Chisem

    Why Are Nuclear Weapons So Appealing to Nation-States in the 21St Century? Written by James Chisem

    Why are Nuclear Weapons So Appealing to Nation-States in the 21st Century? Written by James Chisem This PDF is auto-generated for reference only. As such, it may contain some conversion errors and/or missing information. For all formal use please refer to the official version on the website, as linked below. Why are Nuclear Weapons So Appealing to Nation- States in the 21st Century? https://www.e-ir.info/2011/07/20/why-are-nuclear-weapons-so-appealing-to-nation-states-in-the-21st-century/ JAMES CHISEM, JUL 20 2011 In 1870, as he surveyed the destruction engendered by the American Civil War, the novelist Wilkie Collins remarked that the only way to avoid another such catastrophe would be through the “discovery…of a destructive agent so terrible that war shall mean annihilation, and men’s fears shall force them to keep the peace”[1]. With the advent of the atomic, thermonuclear, and missile ages during the Cold War, Collins’ speculation was seamlessly transposed into reality – albeit in a somewhat less utopian fashion. Mindful of the importance of maintaining crisis stability in a nuclear world, policymakers in NATO and Warsaw Pact countries formulated a long-lasting, and at times tenuous, strategic framework of deterrence based upon mutual vulnerability[2]. The collapse of bi-polarity in 1991, however, removed a central justification for the retention of nuclear arsenals, and ushered in a brief period of optimism regarding the nuclear question – statesmen once again began to invoke the goal of ‘global zero’[3]. And yet, despite coordinated counter-proliferation efforts throughout the 1990s and 2000s and the ratification of a multitude of arms control agreements, there is little to indicate that, in the twenty-first century, multi-lateral disarmament is likely, or that horizontal proliferation will cease.
  • Ocalized Conflicts and Added New Inhibitions to the Use of Force

    Ocalized Conflicts and Added New Inhibitions to the Use of Force

    JX 1428 RUSSIA B 72-107 F UNITED STATES RELATIONS WITH THE SOVIET UNION, 1960-1970: A SHORT CHRONOLOGY WITH INTRODUCTORY SUMMARY I S. y lCV *V /7F LIBRARY UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA BARBARA / K i o c - 2 7l 1972 W DEPT. GOVT. PUBLICATIONS V4/ ,r. BARBARA MIHALCHENKO Foreign Affairs Analyst / I. Foreign Affairs Division May 2, 1972 ' TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Summary ------------------------------------------ 1 I. Conflict and Crisis, 1960-1964 ----------------------- 2 II. On the Threshold of the Era of Negotiations, 4 1965-1970 ----------------------------------------- III. Chronology ------------------------------------------- 6 1 UNITED STATES RELATIONS WITH THE SOVIET UNION, 1960-1970: A SHORT CHRONOLOGY WITH INTRODUCTORY SUMMARY* S7AYARY The decade of the 1960's can be viewed as a transitional period in the over-all Soviet-American relationship. The fear of mutual destruction through nuclear war, reinforced by crisis conflicts, imposed restraint on the use of force and averted direct military clashes between the two superpowers. Furthermore, it led to negotiations designed to limit the escalation of strategic weapons. Because of the complexity of Soviet-American relations in regard to the Vietnam War and the Middle East these areas of conflict have only been briefly mentioned in this chronology. The reader is referred to the following sources for information on these issues: U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Foreign Relations. Background Information Relating to Southeast Asia and Vietnam. (6th Revised Edition) 91st Congress. 2d Session. June 1970. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1970. 455 p. Mark, Clyde R. The West and the Soviet Union in the Middle East : A Chronology of Events Since World War II.