Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-n6p7q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-02T13:48:25.023Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Nuclear Myths and Political Realities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Kenneth N. Waltz*
Affiliation:
University of California Berkeley

Abstract

Two pervasive beliefs have given nuclear weapons a bad name: that nuclear deterrence is highly problematic, and that a breakdown in deterrence would mean Armageddon. Both beliefs are misguided and suggest that nearly half a century after Hiroshima, scholars and policy makers have yet to grasp the full strategic implications of nuclear weaponry. I contrast the logic of conventional and nuclear weaponry to show how nuclear weapons are in fact a tremendous force for peace and afford nations that possess them the possibility of security at reasonable cost.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ball, Desmond. 1981. “Counterforce Targeting: How New? How Viable?Arms Control Today 11:19.Google Scholar
Brodie, Bernard, ed. 1946. The Absolute Weapon. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Brodie, Bernard. 1957. “More about Limited War.World Politics 10:112–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodie, Bernard. 1973. War and Politics. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Brooks, Linton F. 1988. “Naval Power and National Security.” In The Use of Force, 3d ed., ed. Art, Robert J. and Waltz, Kenneth N.. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Brown, Harold. 1979. Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1980. Washington: U.S. Department of Defense.Google Scholar
Brown, Harold. 1980. Annual Report, Fiscal Year 1981. Washington: U.S. Department of Defense.Google Scholar
Bundy, McGeorge, George F., Kennan, Robert S., McNamara, and Gerard, Smith. 1982. “Nuclear Weapons and the Atlantic Alliance.Foreign Affairs 60:753–68.Google Scholar
Clausewitz, Carl von. 1976. On War. Trans. Howard, Michael and Paret, Peter. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dowd, Maureen. 1984. “Ferraro Suggests Reagan Go Home.” New York Times 22 September.Google Scholar
Dulles, John Foster. 1954. “Policy for Security and Peace.Foreign Affairs 32:353–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, Michael. 1981. “On Fighting a Nuclear War.International Security 5:317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, William. 1968. “The Moral Equivalent of War.” In War: Studies from Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology, 2d ed., ed. Bramson, Leon and Goethals, George W.. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kahn, Herman. 1960. On Thermonuclear War. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Robert F. 1969. Thirteen Days. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Kissinger, Henry. 1979. “Kissinger's Critique.Economist 3 February.Google Scholar
Kissinger, Henry. 1981. For the Record: Selected Statements, 1977–1980. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Lewis, Paul. 1938. “Soviet Official Says Talks on Arms Should Emphasize Cuts in Navies.New York Times 19 October.Google Scholar
Nitze, Paul H. 1988. “Deterring Our Deterrent.” In The Use of Force, 3d ed., ed. Art, Robert J. and Waltz, Kenneth N.. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Pringle, Peter, and Arkin, William. 1983. S.I.O.P.: The Secret of U.S. Plan for Nuclear War. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Rose, John P. 1980. The Evolution of U.S. Army Nuclear Doctrine, 1945–1980. Boulder: Westview.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Andrew. 1989. “Pentagon Report Softens Soviet Menace.New York Times 28 September.Google Scholar
Warner, Edward L. III. 1989. “New Thinking and Old Realities in Soviet Defense Policy.Survival 31:1333.Google Scholar