The Case for Nuclear Superiority

Abstract

AbstractContemporary strategies echo the logic of their Cold War–era predecessors. As before, the claims rest on compelling but indeterminate math—inconclusive ratios or differences of advantage—and ungrounded assumptions about the relative willingness of the combatants to absorb cost. No less problematically, they exaggerate US control over nuclear-crisis outcomes by downplaying the confounding influence of political, social, psychological, and organizational forces on all parties to the conflict. The deficiencies reflect the effects of a profound bias, rooted in “instrumental reasoning” and “linear thinking.” In response, Chapter 9 offers policy prescriptions that acknowledge the limits of our understanding, and the dangers that accrue from bold leaps into the unknown.