Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-j5sqr Total loading time: 0.594 Render date: 2022-09-25T14:55:47.881Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Nuclear Brinkmanship, Limited War, and Military Power

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2015

Get access

Abstract

An open question in nuclear deterrence theory is whether and how the balance of military power affects the dynamics of escalation. The balance of military strength plays virtually no role in standard accounts of brinkmanship. But this is largely by assumption and seems incompatible with an apparent trade-off between power and risk that decision makers have faced in some actual crises. This paper incorporates this trade-off in a modified model of nuclear brinkmanship. A main result is that the more likely the balance of resolve is to favor a defender, the less military power a challenger brings to bear. The model also formalizes the stability-instability paradox, showing that a less stable strategic balance, that is, a sharper trade-off between power and risk, makes conflict at high levels of violence less likely but conflict at lower levels more likely. The analysis also helps explain the incentives different states have to adopt different nuclear doctrines and force postures.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 2015 

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

Ashraf, Tariq M. 2004. Doctrinal Reawakening of the Indian Armed Forces. Military Review 84 (6):5362.Google Scholar
Beardsley, Kyle, and Asal, Victor. 2009. Winning with the Bomb. Journal of Conflict Resolution 53 (2):278301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertram, Christoph. 1981. The Implications of Theater Nuclear Weapons in Europe. Foreign Affairs 60 (2): 305–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Bruce G. 1993. The Logic of Accidental Nuclear War. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Bracken, Paul J. 1983. The Command and Control of Nuclear Forces. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bundy, McGeorge. 1984. Existential Deterrence and Its Consequences. In The Security Gamble: Deterrence in the Nuclear Age, edited by MacLean, Douglas. 313. Totowa, NJ: Rowan and Allanheld.Google Scholar
Bundy, McGeorge. 1988. Danger and Survival: Choices about the Bomb in the First Fifty Years. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Burt, Richard. 1981. NATO and Nuclear Deterrence. Current Policy 319, 23 September. Washington, DC: United States Department of State.Google Scholar
Clary, Christopher, and Narang, Vipin. 2013. Doctrine, Capabilities, and (In)Stability in South Asia. In Deterrence Stability in South Asia, edited by Krepon, Michael and Thompson, Julia, 93106. Washington, DC: The Stimson Center.Google Scholar
Cohen, Stephen P. 2004. The Idea of Pakistan. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, Stephen P., and Dasgupta, Sunil. 2010. Arming Without Aiming: India's Military Modernization. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Davis, Jacquelyn K. 1981. Theater-Nuclear Force Modernization and NATO's Flexible Response Strategy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 457 (1):7887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federation of American Scientists. 2002. Nuclear Posture Review Report [Reconstructed]. Washington, DC: Nuclear Information Project, Federation of American Scientists. Available at <http://home.sogang.ac.kr/sites/jaechun/courses/Lists/b7/Attachments/6/2002%20nuclear%20posture%20review.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2014.Google Scholar
Feaver, Peter D. 1992. Guarding the Guardians: Civilian Control of Nuclear Weapons in the United States. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Freedman, Lawrence. 2003. The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy. 3rd ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fudenberg, Drew, and Tirole, Jean. 1991. Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Fursenko, Aleksandr, and Naftali, Timothy. 1997. One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro and Kennedy, 1958–64. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Ganguly, Sumit. 2008. Nuclear Stability in South Asia. International Security 33 (2): 4570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganguly, Sumit, and Hagerty, Devin. 2005. Fearful Symmetry: India-Pakistan Crises in the Shadow of Nuclear Weapons. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Ganguly, Sumit, and Kapur, S. Paul, eds. 2009. Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia: Crisis Behavior and the Bomb. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ganguly, Sumit, and Kraig, Michael R.. 2005. The 2001–2002 Indo-Pakistani Crisis: Exposing the Limits of Coercive Diplomacy. Security Studies 14 (2):290324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganguly, Sumit, and Wagner, R. Harrison. 2004. India and Pakistan: Bargaining in the Shadow of Nuclear War. Journal of Strategic Studies 27 (3): 479507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garthoff, Raymond L. 1983. The NATO Decision on Theater Nuclear Forces. Political Science Quarterly 98 (2):197214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gill, John H. 2009. Military Operations in the Kargil Conflict. In Asymmetric Warfare in South Asia: The Causes and Consequences of the Kargil Conflict, edited by Lavoy, Peter R., 92129. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Charles L. 1990. Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Charles L., and Fetter, Steve. 2001. National Missile Defense and the Future of US Nuclear Weapons Policy. International Security 26 (1):4092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haqqani, Husain, and Tellis, Ashley J.. 2004. India and Pakistan: Is Peace Real this Time? Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.Google Scholar
Hoyt, Timothy D. 2001. Pakistani Nuclear Doctrine and the Dangers of Strategic Myopia. Asian Survey 41 (6):956–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1979. Why Nuclear Superiority Doesn't Matter. Political Science Quarterly 94 (4):617–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1984. The Illogic of American Nuclear Strategy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1989. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Joeck, Neil. 2009. The Kargil War and Nuclear Deterrence. In Nuclear Proliferation in South Asia, edited by Ganguly, Sumit and Kapur, S. Paul, 117–43. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Joeck, Neil. 2013. Prospects for Limited War and Nuclear Use in South Asia. In Deterrence Stability in South Asia, edited by Krepon, Michael and Thompson, Julia, 107–22. Washington, DC: The Stimson Center.Google Scholar
Kapur, S. Paul. 2005. India and Pakistan's Unstable Peace: Why Nuclear South Asia is Not Like Cold War Europe. International Security 30 (2):127–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapur, S. Paul. 2007. Dangerous Deterrent: Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Conflict in South Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kapur, S. Paul. 2009. Revisionist Ambitions, Conventional Capabilities, and Nuclear Instability: Why Nuclear South Asia Is Not Like Cold War Europe. In Inside Nuclear South Asia, edited by Sagan, Scott D., 184218. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kargil Review Committee. 2000. From Surprise to Reckoning: The Kargil Review Committee Report. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Karl, David J. 2011. Proliferation Optimism and Pessimism Revisited. Journal of Strategic Studies 34 (4):619–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karnad, Bharat. 2008. India's Nuclear Policy. Westport, CT: Praeger Security International.Google Scholar
Khan, Feroz H. 2003. Challenges to Nuclear Stability in South Asia. The Nonproliferation Review 10 (1):5974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knorr, Klaus. 1962. Limited Strategic War. In Limited Strategic War, edited by Knorr, Klaus and Read, Thorton, 337. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kroenig, Matthew. 2013. Nuclear Superiority and the Balance of Resolve: Explaining Nuclear Crisis Outcomes. International Organization 67 (1):141–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladwig, Walter C. 2007/8. A Cold Start for Hot Wars? The Indian Army's New Limited War Doctrine. International Security 32 (3):158–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavoy, Peter R. 1995. The Strategic Consequences of Nuclear Proliferation: A Review Essay. Security Studies 4 (4):695753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavoy, Peter R. 2005. Pakistan's Nuclear Posture. In Prospects for Peace in South Asia, edited by Dossani, Rafiq and Rowen, Henry, 280300. Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lavoy, Peter R. 2009. Asymmetric Warfare in South Asia: The Causes and Consequences of the Kargil Conflict. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Keir A., and Press, Daryl G.. 2013. Snapshots: The Next Korean War. Foreign Affairs (Internet ed.), 1 April. Avalailable at <http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139091/keir-a-lieber-and-daryl-g-press/the-next-korean-war>. Accessed 21 July 2014..+Accessed+21+July+2014.>Google Scholar
Malik, V.P. 2006. Kargil : From Surprise to Victory. New Delhi: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
May, Ernest R., and Zelikow, Philip. 1997. The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House During the Cuban Missile Crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Miraglia, Sebastien. 2013. Deadly or Impotent? Nuclear Command and Control in Pakistan. Strategic Studies 36 (6):841–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nalebuff, Barry. 1986. Brinkmanship and Nuclear Deterrence: The Neutrality of Escalation. Conflict Management and Peace Science 9 (2):1930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narang, Vipin. 2009/10. Posturing for Peace? Pakistan's Nuclear Postures and South Asian Stability. International Security 34 (3):3878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1985. The Theoretical Foundations of Strategic Nuclear Deterrence. Political Science Quarterly 100 (1):7596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1990. Nuclear Deterrence Theory: The Search for Credibility. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 2003. Nuclear Deterrence Theory, Nuclear Proliferation, and National Missile Defense. International Security 27 (4):86118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posen, Barry. 1992. Inadvertent Escalation: Conventional War and Nuclear Risks. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Raghavan, V.R. 2001. Limited War and Nuclear Escalation in South Asia. The Nonproliferation Review 8 (3):118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy-Chaudhury, Rahul. 2009. India's Nuclear Doctrine: A Critical Analysis. Strategic Analysis 33 (3):404–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sagan, Scott D. 1994. Organized for Accidents. Security Studies 3 (3):509–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagan, Scott D. 2009. The Evolution of Pakistani and Indian Nuclear Doctrine. In Inside Nuclear South Asia, edited by Sagan, Scott D., 219–64. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1966. Arms and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Sechser, Todd S., and Fuhrmann, Matthew. 2013. Crisis Bargaining and Nuclear Blackmail. International Organization 67 (1):173–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, Amarinder. 2001. A Ridge Too Far: War in the Kargil Heights 1999. Patiala, India: Motibagh Palace.Google Scholar
Singh, Jasjit. 1999. Kargil 1999: Pakistan's Fourth War for Kashmir. New Delhi: Knowledge World.Google Scholar
Snyder, Glenn H. 1965. The Balance of Power and the Balance of Terror. In The Balance of Power, edited by Seabury, Paul, 184201. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.Google Scholar
Snyder, Glenn H., and Diesing, Paul. 1977. Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in International Crises. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sood, V.K., and Sawhney, Pravin. 2003. Operation Parakram: The War Unfinished. New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
Swami, Praveen. 1999. The Kargil War. New Delhi: LeftWord Books.Google Scholar
Thayer, Bradley A. 1994. The Risk of Nuclear Inadvertence. Security Studies 3 (3):428–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trachtenberg, Marc. 1985. The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis. International Security 10 (1):137–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
US Department of Defense. 2010. Nuclear Posture Review Report. Washington, DC: United States Department of Defense.Google Scholar
Walt, Stephen. 2000. Containing Rogues and Renegades: Coalition Strategies and Counterproliferation. In The Coming Crisis: Nuclear Proliferation, US Interests, and World Order, edited by Utgoff, Victor A., 191226. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 2012. Why Iran Should Get the Bomb. Foreign Affairs 91 (4):25.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Powell supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Powell supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 141 KB
20
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Nuclear Brinkmanship, Limited War, and Military Power
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Nuclear Brinkmanship, Limited War, and Military Power
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Nuclear Brinkmanship, Limited War, and Military Power
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *