Nuclear Deterrence and the Strategy of Limited Retaliation
- 1 June 1989
- journal article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in American Political Science Review
- Vol. 83 (2) , 503-519
- https://doi.org/10.2307/1962402
Abstract
Recent formal work in nuclear deterrence theory has focused on brinkmanship crises in which states exert coercive pressure by manipulating the risk of an unlimited nuclear exchange. This essay extends the formal analysis of deterrence theory to the strategy of limited retaliation in which states exert coercive pressure by inflicting limited amounts of damage in order to make the threat of future punishment more credible. This strategy is modeled as a game of sequential bargaining with incomplete information. The equilibria suggest that states prefer relatively smaller, less-destructive limited options; that counterforce options are desirable even if they cannot limit the total amount of damage an adversary can inflict; that smaller, less-destructive limited nuclear options may make a nuclear exchange more likely; and that uncertainty and incomplete information may significantly enhance deterrence.Keywords
This publication has 16 references indexed in Scilit:
- Nuclear Brinkmanship with Two-Sided Incomplete InformationAmerican Political Science Review, 1988
- Crisis Bargaining, Escalation, and MADAmerican Political Science Review, 1987
- International Escalation and the Dollar AuctionJournal of Conflict Resolution, 1986
- The Theoretical Foundations of Strategic Nuclear DeterrencePolitical Science Quarterly, 1985
- Rational cooperation in the finitely repeated prisoners' dilemmaJournal of Economic Theory, 1982
- The Origins of Massive RetaliationPolitical Science Quarterly, 1981
- Flexible Madness?Foreign Policy, 1974
- The New Nuclear Debate: Sense or Nonsense?Foreign Affairs, 1974
- The Mutual-Hostage Relationship between America and RussiaForeign Affairs, 1973
- The Dollar Auction game: a paradox in noncooperative behavior and escalationJournal of Conflict Resolution, 1971