Strategic stability

Last updated

Strategic stability is a concept [1] in the international relations indicating a lack of incentives for any party to initiate the nuclear first strike; [2] the term is also used in a broader sense of the state of the international environment helping to avoid a war. [3] Strategic stability characterizes the degree of the deterrence provided by the mutual assured destruction and depends on the survivability of the strategic forces after the first strike. [4]

Contents

Definition

The meaning of the term depends on the context. Edward Warner, a U.S. Secretary of Defense's representative at the New START talks, has observed that the strategic stability can be defined at multiple levels, from the narrowest to the broadest: [3]

  1. The most narrow sense, described in the rest of this article – making the first strike less tempting in the event of a crisis (also known as crisis stability) and absence of incentives to build up the nuclear arsenals (avoiding the arms race instability) – is used by the nuclear-weapon states, including the United States, [5] Even in this narrowest sense there is no universally agreed-upon definition of the strategic stability or ways to quantify it, [6] as the vulnerabilities are country-specific;
  2. A broader sense describes the condition of no armed conflict between the nuclear powers;
  3. In its broadest sense strategic stability defines an international situation, not necessarily global, which is not conducive to an outbreak of a war.

The governments, sometimes intentionally, make confusing references to the strategic stability: [7]

Evolution

Although the traditional view of the impact of the strategic stability, "to make a first strike less plausible", was clearly articulated only in 1990 in a joint US-Soviet statement, [8] the corresponding ideas date back to the early 1950s (the exact roots are hard to identify, as many authors were "circling around" the topic at the time). [1] During the development of the concept (until the early 1960s) the adjective "strategic" was rarely used, most authors used the term "stability" instead, mostly in the sense of the modern crisis stability. [1] The early thinking that evolved into the discussion of stability dates as early as 1946, when the dueling views of Bernard Brodie and William L. Borden were expressed. Brodie considered the nuclear bombs to be an effective weapon when used against the cities, while Borden argued that in the almost inevitable future nuclear war the prime target should be the nuclear forces of the enemy, as "attacking cities ... can so easily be carried out later", and the "assets of surprise and the initiative" should not be squandered on them. In combination, these views reflect both sides of the strategic stability framework: the problem of the vulnerability of the strategic forces to a surprise attack and protecting the ability for a nuclear retaliation as a solution. [9] US discourse in the early 1950s was concentrated on the vulnerability of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) forces to a surprise Soviet attack due to the concentration of its airplanes and atomic bombs at a few densely packed airfields, with proposed solutions involving both making the US nuclear forces more survivable and launching US nuclear bombers preemptively in the case of an imminent attack by the USSR, with the emphasis on preemption. In the words of Eisenhower, US strategic force "once in the air could be recalled ... if it stayed on the ground it might never get off". [10]

A glimpse of the concept of mutual assured destruction (MAD) can be seen in the National Security Council Report 162/2 (NSC-162/2) of October 30, 1953: "a stage of atomic plenty and ample means of delivery [for both sides] ... could create a stalemate, with both sides reluctant to initiate general warfare". [11] The Killian Report of the Science Advisory Committee predicted in 1955 the arrival in the middle of 1960s of the "Period IV", when "neither country can derive a winning advantage, because each country will possess enough multimegaton weapons and adequate means of delivering them." [12] However, the authors of the report did not figure out that MAD can lead to strategic stability, declared instead that the period IV will be "fraught with danger" due to instability and recommended measures to delay its arrival. [13] The report concentrated on the unilateral American moves (like building a large quantity of intercontinental ballistic missiles) and completely ignored the possibility of negotiating arms control agreements or other security-building measures with the USSR. [14] Eisenhower disliked an idea of building a lot of missiles and fighting the war when "Russians can fire 1000 [missiles] at us and we can fire 1000 a day at them" [14] and in 1955 proposed the "Open Skies agreement" that would enable each side to perform aerial reconnaissance over the territory of the other side thus checking that there are no preparations for a surprise attack underway. [15] The "counterintuitive" idea that the Americans are safer when Soviets know that the US is not getting ready for a first strike [16] was an important step towards development of the concept of strategic stability [15] (although not yet labeled as such [16] ). USSR had rejected the proposal, arguing that the information gathered can actually facilitate a surprise attack. [16] On the American side, the importance of arms control agreements was stressed in 1957 in the Gaither Report. [17] US Navy, while competing for government funds with the SAC and land-based missiles, advanced the thinking on the crisis stability by introducing a concept of "finite deterrence": a small number of missiles on highly survivable submarines not only can provide the same deterrence as a much larger number of land-based missiles, but more time for making decisions becomes available in the moment of crisis, as the retaliation strike loses its launch-now-or-never quality. [18]

By 1958 USSR had recognized the dangers of the fear of the first strike by an opponent. [19] However, the US-USSR Surprise Attack Conference (Geneva, November 10th to December 18th, 1958) was a failure due to divergent goals: Americans were looking to identify the technical solutions for preventing the first strike, while Soviets tried to include broader issues, like reducing the presence of US forces in Germany. [20] During the preparations for the conference, one of the earliest official applications of the term "stability" in the nuclear strike context, defined as "freedom from the threat of surprise attack", appeared in an American document. [21]

The 1950s also witnessed the development of another aspect of the strategic stability - focusing on interactions between the states and taking potential thinking of the other side into consideration. [22] The American experts then assumed that the Soviet approach is identical to the American one. This logical leap of an adversary being a "mirror image" of self was taken despite the official rhetoric about the aggressive aims of the USSR and dangers of its ideology, and the validity of this assumption is impossible to verify due to the Russian archives on the subject being still closed (as of 2013). [23] Foundations of the strategic stability reached the wide audience through an article by Albert Wohlstetter in the Foreign Affairs magazine, The Delicate Balance of Terror (1958). [24] Wohlstetter's ideas have influenced Thomas Schelling, who in December 1958 had published a RAND article “Surprise Attack and Disarmament where he argued that the important condition for the deterrence is "is not the ‘balance’ — the sheer equality or symmetry in the situation — ... it is the stability of the balance". [25] Therefore, per Schelling, the "good" weapons are the ones targeting the opponent's society at large and useless against his strategic forces, while the "bad" ones are able to reduce the opponent's ability to strike back, thus providing a "premium on haste" and increasing the chance of a nuclear war. [26]

The concept of strategic stability became widespread among experts in the early 1960s, while the US government had accepted it later, when "the stability of our deterrent" language appeared in the annual Draft Presidential Memorandum on Strategic Offensive and Defensive Forces in 1969. [27]

In the post-Cold War situation the concept of strategic stability, along with the arms control, appeared to have lost its significance. With Russia no longer considered a peer competitor, constraints on the American behavior did not look justified, especially when the new threats from the regional adversaries and China were considered. [28] Due to the new balance of forces the survivability of forces after the first strike became much less of an issue for the USA than for Russia. [29] Dall’Agnol and Cepik argued in 2021 that the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty in 2001 began the erosion of the institutional foundations of strategic stability in the 21st century. [30] Brustlein suggests that in this environment Europeans are the ones to be worried about the strategic stability. [31]

Crisis stability and arms race stability

Traditional definition of the crisis stability belongs to Schelling: the crisis is stable "if neither side has or perceives an incentive to use nuclear weapons first out of the fear that the other side is about to do so". [32] Crisis instability is one pathway through which a political or conventional armed conflict can turn nuclear. [33]

James M. Acton defines the arms race stability as "the absence of perceived or actual incentives to augment a nuclear force ... out of the fear that in a crisis an opponent would gain a meaningful advantage by using nuclear weapons first". [32] Acton goes further by arguing that the crisis stability and arms race stability are two views of the same "concern that an adversary might use nuclear weapons first in a crisis", observed on different timescales, [34] with the classic crisis stability corresponding to the shortest decision times, and the arms race instability to the longest ones. [35]

Acton considers the following timescales and corresponding force posture adjustments:

Critique

The value of strategic stability was questioned from the very beginning. Brustlein [39] points to two negative effects of achieving the strategic stability:

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 Gerson 2013, p. 3.
  2. ↑ Trenin 2019, p. 7.
  3. 1 2 Acton 2013, pp. 117–118.
  4. ↑ Steinbruner 1978, p. 411.
  5. ↑ Acton 2013, p. 118.
  6. ↑ Gerson 2013, p. 2.
  7. ↑ Acton 2013, pp. 118–119.
  8. ↑ Rojansky 2013, p. 304.
  9. ↑ Gerson 2013, pp. 4–5.
  10. ↑ Gerson 2013, pp. 12–14.
  11. ↑ Gerson 2013, p. 7.
  12. ↑ Gerson 2013, p. 16.
  13. ↑ Gerson 2013, p. 17.
  14. 1 2 Gerson 2013, p. 18.
  15. 1 2 Gerson 2013, p. 19.
  16. 1 2 3 Gerson 2013, p. 20.
  17. ↑ Gerson 2013, p. 21.
  18. ↑ Gerson 2013, pp. 24–26.
  19. ↑ Gerson 2013, p. 22.
  20. ↑ Gerson 2013, pp. 23–24.
  21. ↑ Gerson 2013, p. 30.
  22. ↑ Gerson 2013, p. 26.
  23. ↑ Gerson 2013, p. 27.
  24. ↑ Gerson 2013, pp. 31–32.
  25. ↑ Gerson 2013, pp. 32–33.
  26. ↑ Gerson 2013, pp. 33–35.
  27. ↑ Gerson 2013, p. 36.
  28. ↑ Brustlein 2018, p. 22.
  29. ↑ Brustlein 2018, p. 23.
  30. ↑ Dall'Agnol & Cepik 2021, p. 2.
  31. ↑ Brustlein 2018, p. 24.
  32. 1 2 Acton 2013, p. 121.
  33. ↑ Acton 2013, p. 130.
  34. 1 2 Acton 2013, p. 124.
  35. ↑ Acton 2013, p. 128.
  36. ↑ Acton 2013, pp. 125–126.
  37. ↑ Acton 2013, pp. 126–127.
  38. ↑ Acton 2013, p. 127.
  39. ↑ Brustlein 2018, pp. 21–22.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty</span> 1972 arms control treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, also known as the ABM Treaty or ABMT, was an arms control treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile (ABM) systems used in defending areas against ballistic missile-delivered nuclear weapons. It was intended to reduce pressures to build more nuclear weapons to maintain deterrence. Under the terms of the treaty, each party was limited to two ABM complexes, each of which was to be limited to 100 anti-ballistic missiles.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear weapon</span> Explosive weapon that utilizes nuclear reactions

A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either fission or a combination of fission and fusion reactions, producing a nuclear explosion. Both bomb types release large quantities of energy from relatively small amounts of matter.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear disarmament</span> Act of eliminating nuclear weapons

Nuclear disarmament is the act of reducing or eliminating nuclear weapons. Its end state can also be a nuclear-weapons-free world, in which nuclear weapons are completely eliminated. The term denuclearization is also used to describe the process leading to complete nuclear disarmament.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear warfare</span> Military conflict that deploys nuclear weaponry

Nuclear warfare, also known as atomic warfare, is a military conflict or prepared political strategy that deploys nuclear weaponry. Nuclear weapons are weapons of mass destruction; in contrast to conventional warfare, nuclear warfare can produce destruction in a much shorter time and can have a long-lasting radiological result. A major nuclear exchange would likely have long-term effects, primarily from the fallout released, and could also lead to secondary effects, such as "nuclear winter", nuclear famine, and societal collapse. A global thermonuclear war with Cold War-era stockpiles, or even with the current smaller stockpiles, may lead to various scenarios including the extinction of the human species.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">First strike (nuclear strategy)</span> Preemptive attack using nuclear weapons

In nuclear strategy, a first strike or preemptive strike is a preemptive surprise attack employing overwhelming force. First strike capability is a country's ability to defeat another nuclear power by destroying its arsenal to the point where the attacking country can survive the weakened retaliation while the opposing side is left unable to continue war. The preferred methodology is to attack the opponent's strategic nuclear weapon facilities, command and control sites, and storage depots first. The strategy is called counterforce.

Mutual assured destruction (MAD) is a doctrine of military strategy and national security policy which posits that a full-scale use of nuclear weapons by an attacker on a nuclear-armed defender with second-strike capabilities would result in the complete annihilation of both the attacker and the defender. It is based on the theory of rational deterrence, which holds that the threat of using strong weapons against the enemy prevents the enemy's use of those same weapons. The strategy is a form of Nash equilibrium in which, once armed, neither side has any incentive to initiate a conflict or to disarm.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">No first use</span> Refrainment from using weapons of mass destruction unless attacked with them first

In nuclear ethics and deterrence theory, no first use (NFU) refers to a type of pledge or policy wherein a nuclear power formally refrains from the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in warfare, except for as a second strike in retaliation to an attack by an enemy power using WMD. Such a pledge would allow for a unique state of affairs in which a given nuclear power can be engaged in a conflict of conventional weaponry while it formally forswears any of the strategic advantages of nuclear weapons, provided the enemy power does not possess or utilize any such weapons of their own. The concept is primarily invoked in reference to nuclear mutually assured destruction but has also been applied to chemical and biological warfare, as is the case of the official WMD policy of India.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">World War III</span> Hypothetical future global conflict

World War III or the Third World War are the names given to a hypothetical global conflict subsequent to World War I (1914–1918) and World War II (1939–1945). It is widely assumed that such a conflict would surpass the prior world wars in both scope and destruction. Some have applied the term to limited conflicts, such as the war on terror, or to the Cold War, which involved regional conflicts backed by superpowers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear arms race</span> Part of the Post-WWII era and the Cold War

The nuclear arms race was an arms race competition for supremacy in nuclear warfare between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies during the Cold War. During this same period, in addition to the American and Soviet nuclear stockpiles, other countries developed nuclear weapons, though no other country engaged in warhead production on nearly the same scale as the two superpowers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canada and weapons of mass destruction</span>

Canada has not officially maintained and possessed weapons of mass destruction since 1984 and, as of 1998, has signed treaties repudiating possession of them. Canada ratified the Geneva Protocol in 1930 and the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1970.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Single Integrated Operational Plan</span> 1961–2003 US nuclear strategy document

The Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) was the United States' general plan for nuclear war from 1961 to 2003. The SIOP gave the President of the United States a range of targeting options, and described launch procedures and target sets against which nuclear weapons would be launched. The plan integrated the capabilities of the nuclear triad of strategic bombers, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), and sea-based submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBM). The SIOP was a highly classified document, and was one of the most secret and sensitive issues in U.S. national security policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Flexible response</span> Military strategy of the Kennedy administration

Flexible response was a defense strategy implemented by John F. Kennedy in 1961 to address the Kennedy administration's skepticism of Dwight Eisenhower's New Look and its policy of massive retaliation. Flexible response calls for mutual deterrence at strategic, tactical, and conventional levels, giving the United States the capability to respond to aggression across the spectrum of war, not limited only to nuclear arms.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear weapons debate</span>

The nuclear weapons debate refers to the controversies surrounding the threat, use and stockpiling of nuclear weapons. Even before the first nuclear weapons had been developed, scientists involved with the Manhattan Project were divided over the use of the weapon. The only time nuclear weapons have been used in warfare was during the final stages of World War II when USAAF B-29 Superfortress bombers dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in early August 1945. The role of the bombings in Japan's surrender and the U.S.'s ethical justification for them have been the subject of scholarly and popular debate for decades.

Deterrence & Survival in the Nuclear Age, commonly referred to as the Gaither report, is a report submitted in November 1957 to the United States National Security Council and the U.S. president concerning strategy to prepare against the perceived threat of a nuclear attack from the Soviet Union.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Second strike</span> Response to a powerful first nuclear strike

In nuclear strategy, a retaliatory strike or second-strike capability is a country's assured ability to respond to a nuclear attack with powerful nuclear retaliation against the attacker. To have such an ability is considered vital in nuclear deterrence, as otherwise the other side might attempt to try to win a nuclear war in one massive first strike against its opponent's own nuclear forces.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Launch on warning</span> Nuclear strategy

Launch on warning (LOW), or fire on warning, is a strategy of nuclear weapon retaliation where a retaliatory strike is launched upon warning of enemy nuclear attack and while its missiles are still in the air, before detonation occurs. It gained recognition during the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. With the invention of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), launch on warning became an integral part of mutually-assured destruction (MAD) theory. US land-based missiles can reportedly be launched within 5 minutes of a presidential decision to do so and submarine-based missiles within 15 minutes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Nuclear triad</span> Set of three types of nuclear-strike weapons

A nuclear triad is a three-pronged military force structure of land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and strategic bombers with nuclear bombs and missiles. Countries build nuclear triads to eliminate an enemy's ability to destroy a nation's nuclear forces in a first-strike attack, which preserves their own ability to launch a second strike and therefore increases their nuclear deterrence.

The President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) was created on November 21, 1957, by President of the United States Dwight D. Eisenhower, as a direct response to the Soviet launching of the Sputnik 1 and Sputnik 2 satellites. PSAC was an upgrade and move to the White House of the Science Advisory Committee (SAC) established in 1951 by President Harry S. Truman, as part of the Office of Defense Mobilization (ODM). Its purpose was to advise the president on scientific matters in general, and those related to defense issues in particular. Eisenhower appointed James R. Killian as PSAC's first director.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Strategic nuclear weapon</span> Nuclear weapons used on strategic targets outside of battlefields

A strategic nuclear weapon (SNW) refers to a nuclear weapon that is designed to be used on targets often in settled territory far from the battlefield as part of a strategic plan, such as military bases, military command centers, arms industries, transportation, economic, and energy infrastructure, and countervalue targets such areas such as cities and towns. It is in contrast to a tactical nuclear weapon, which is designed for use in battle as part of an attack with and often near friendly conventional forces, possibly on contested friendly territory.

Dead Hand, also known as Perimeter, is a Cold War-era automatic nuclear weapons-control system that was constructed by the Soviet Union. The system remains in use in the post-Soviet Russian Federation. An example of fail-deadly and mutual assured destruction deterrence, it can automatically initiate the launch of the Russian intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) by sending a pre-entered highest-authority order from the General Staff of the Armed Forces, Strategic Missile Force Management to command posts and individual silos if a nuclear strike is detected by seismic, light, radioactivity, and pressure sensors even with the commanding elements fully destroyed. By most accounts, it is normally switched off and is supposed to be activated during times of crisis; however, as of 2009, it was said to remain fully functional and able to serve its purpose when needed.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.