U.S.-Soviet Nuclear Arms Race Massive Retaliation first-strike capability Europe U.S. Soviet Union second-strike capability Europe U.S. Soviet Union Mutually Assured Destruction second-strike capability second-strike capability ? Europe U.S. Soviet Union Game of Chicken Red Give in Stand firm socially optimal equilibrium Give in 3, 3 2 , 4 Blue equilibrium Stand firm 4 , 2 1 , 1 Blue Stand Give in firm Red Red Stand Stand Give in firm Give in firm (3,3) (2,4) (4,2) (1,1) Evolution of U.S. Nuclear Policy theory of deterrence Mutually Assured Nuclear Utilization Destruction Theory credibility? Massive Flexible Retaliation Response retaliatory policy Missile Defense second-strike capability first-strike capability ? Europe U.S. Soviet Union U.S. National Security Strategy (September 2002) We are attentive to the possible renewal of old patterns of great power competition. Several potential great powers are now in the midst of internal transition—most importantly Russia, India, and China. In all three cases, recent developments have encouraged our hope that a truly global consensus about basic principles is slowly taking shape…. The United States must and will maintain the capability to defeat any attempt by an enemy—whether a state or non-state actor—to impose its will on the United States, our allies, or our friends. We will maintain the forces sufficient to support our obligations, and to defend freedom. Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States. Balance of Power Theory and American Primacy hegemony P(counterbalance) relative power U.S. National Security Strategy (December 2017) A central continuity in history is the contest for power. The present time period is no different. After being dismissed as a phenomenon of an earlier century, great power competition returned. China and Russia began to reassert their influence regionally and globally. Today, they are fielding military capabilities designed to deny America access in times of crisis and to contest our ability to operate freely in critical commercial zones during peacetime. In short, they are contesting our geopolitical advantages and trying to change the international order in their favor. Adversaries studied the American way of war and began investing in capabilities that targeted our strengths and sought to exploit perceived weaknesses…. Such capabilities contest what was until recently U.S. dominance across the land, air, maritime, space, and cyberspace domains..