Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:21:50.385Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Nuclear learning and U.S.–Soviet security regimes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2009

Joseph S. Nye Jr
Joseph S. Nye Jr
Affiliation:
Professor of Government at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Get access

Abstract

The concepts of regimes and learning have been developed in the Liberal theory of international relations, but their application has been mostly in the area of international political economy. U.S.–Soviet relations are generally explained solely in terms of Realist theory. The dichotomy is unfortunate because both strands of theory have something to contribute. Although the injunctions of an overall regime do not govern the U.S.–Soviet security relationship, it is possible to identify the injunctions and constraining effects of regimes in subissues of the security relationship. In five areas of the nuclear relationship (destructive power, control problems, proliferation, arms race stability, and deterrent force structure), it is possible to identify different degrees of learning and to see how such learning affects and is affected by the development of regimes. Looking at the U.S.–Soviet security relationship in terms of learning and regimes raises new questions and opens a research agenda which helps us to think more broadly about the processes of political change in this area.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Organization , Volume 41 , Issue 3 , Summer 1987 , pp. 371 - 402
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1987

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

1. See Levy, Jack, War in the Modern Great Power System, 1495–1975 (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

2. Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979).Google Scholar

3. Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph S., Power and Interdependence (Boston: Little, Brown, 1977)Google Scholar.

4. See Holsti, Kal J., The Dividing Discipline (Winchester, Mass.: Allen & Unwin, 1985)Google Scholar.

5. Deutsch, Karl et al. , Political Community and the North Atlantic Area (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1957)Google Scholar; Haas, Ernst, The Uniting of Europe (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1958)Google Scholar; Nye, Joseph S., Peace in Parts (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971)Google Scholar.

6. Keohane and Nye, Power and Independence.

7. Krasner, Stephen, ed., International Regimes (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1983)Google Scholar. Krasner's definition distinguishes between principles, norms, rules, and procedures. These dimensions tend to be ones of level of abstraction; they often blend into each other in practice. See Young, Oran R., “International Regimes: Toward a New Theory of Institutions,” World Politics 39 (10 1986), p. 106Google Scholar.

8. See the special issue of World Politics 38 (10 1985), edited by Oye, KennethGoogle Scholar.

9. Keohane, Robert, After Hegemony (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

10. Stein, Janet Gross, “Detection and Defection: Security Regimes and the Management of International Conflict,” International Journal 11 (Autumn 1985)Google Scholar; Lipson, Charles, “International Cooperation in Economic and Security Affairs,” World Politics 37 (10 1984)Google Scholar; Robert Jervis, “Security Regimes,” in Krasner, International Regimes; and “From Balance to Concept,” in World Politics 38 (10 1985)Google Scholar.

11. Caldwell, Dan, American-Soviet Relations: From 1947 to the Nixon-Kissinger Grand Design (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1981)Google Scholar; Mandelbaum, Michael, The Nuclear Revolution (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), chap. 3Google Scholar; Gowa, Joanne and Wessell, Nils, Ground Rules: Soviet and American Involvement in Regional Conflicts (Philadelphia: Foreign Policy Research Institute, 1982)Google Scholar; Gompert, David, Mandelbaum, Michael, Garwin, Richard, and Barton, John, Nuclear Weapons and World Politics (New York: McGraw Hill, 1977)Google Scholar.

12. Jervis, , “Security Regimes,” p. 359.Google Scholar

13. See Susan Strange, “Cave! Hie Dragones: A Critique of Regime Analysis,” in Krasner, International Regimes.

14. Based on conversations with Soviet academicians, Moscow, June 1986. Note also Gorbachev's, M. recent suggestion of “an international regime for the safe development of nuclear energy.” New York Times, 4 06 1986Google Scholar, or his 1985 tribute to the “international non-profileration regime … as an effective instrument of peace.” Soviet News, no. 6289, 28 08 1985Google Scholar.

15. Bialer, Seweryn, The Soviet Paradox (New York: Knopf, 1986), p. 40Google Scholar; Pipes, Richard, Survival is Not Enough (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1984)Google Scholar.

16. Gowa and Wessell, Ground Rules; see also the forthcoming work by Robert Legvold, Columbia University.

17. Zimmerman, William, Soviet Perspectives on International Relations, 1956–1967 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1973), p. 32Google Scholar.

18. Weinberger interview in Charlton, Michael, The Star Wars History (London: BBC, 1986), p. 97Google Scholar.

19. Scowcroft interview in Charlton, , Star Wars History, p. 106Google Scholar.

20. Etheredge, Lloyd, Can Governments Learn? (New York: Pergamon Press, 1985), p. 143Google Scholar; also “Government Learning: An Overview,” in Long, Samuel L., ed., Handbook of Political Behavior, vol. 2 (New York: Plenum Press, 1981), pp. 73–161Google Scholar.

21. Haas, Ernst, “Why Collaborate? Issue-Linkage and International Regimes,” World Politics 32 (04 1980), p. 390.Google Scholar

22. Neustadt, Richard and May, Ernest, Thinking in Time (New York: Free Press, 1986)Google Scholar. See also Steinbruner, John D., The Cybernetic Theory of Decision (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1974)Google Scholar; Jervis, Robert, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), chap. 6Google Scholar.

23. For a discussion of theories of the affects of prior beliefs and some interesting examples, see Larson, Deborah, Origins of Containment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985)Google Scholar.

24. Leng, Russell, “When Will They Ever Learn?” Journal of Conflict Resolution 27 (09 1983)Google Scholar.

25. Argyris, Chris and Schon, Donald, Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1978)Google Scholar. Their terminology is single-loop and double-loop learning.

26. See Etheredge, Can Governments Learn? for this interpretation.

27. Jervis, Perception and Misperception, chap. 6.

28. Rosenau, James N., “Learning in East-West Relations: The Superpowers as Habit-Driven Actors” (Los Angeles: Institute for Transnational Studies, mimeo, 1986)Google Scholar.

29. Steinbruner, , Cybernetic Theory, pp. 78–79Google Scholar.

30. Gustafson, Thane, Reform in Soviet Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), chap. 6Google Scholar.

31. Dallin, Alexander, “The Democratic Sources of Soviet Foreign Policy,” in Bialer, Seweryn, ed., The Domestic Context of Soviet Foreign Policy (Boulder: Westview Press, 1981), p.359Google Scholar.

32. Gottemoeller, Rose E., “Decisionmaking for Arms Limitation in the Soviet Union,” in Brauch, Hans Guenther and Clark, Duncan, eds., Decisionmaking for Arms Limitation (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1983), pp. 53 ff.Google Scholar

33. Robert Legvold, cited in note 16. Compare to Zimmerman, Soviet Perspectives.

34. Shevchenko, Arkady, Breaking with Moscow (New York: Ballantine, 1985) p. 270Google Scholar.

35. See Congressional Information Service, “ABM, MIRV, SALT, and the Nuclear Arms Race,” 72–608111 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970)Google Scholar; “ Senate Unit Asks MIRV Test Cutoff,” New York Times, 17 March 1970, p. 7; Finney, John W., “Senate Unit Urges Nuclear Arms Freeze,” New York Times, 21 03 1970, p. 6Google Scholar.

36. Gaddis, John Lewis, “The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System,” International Security 10 (Spring 1986)Google Scholar. “The pattern of caution in the use of nuclear weapons did not develop solely, as one might have expected, from the prospect of retaliation.” It “may owe more to the moral and public relations-sensibilities of Washington officials than to any actual fear of escalation,” p. 137.

37. Blechman, Barry and Kaplan, Stephen, Force Without War (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1978)Google Scholar.

38. Graham, Thomas W., “Future Fission,” Harvard University Center for Science and International Affairs, 1987Google Scholar.

39. See Holloway, David, The Soviet Union and the Arms Race (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

40. Lambeth, Benjamin S., “Nuclear Proliferation and Soviet Arms Control Policy,” Orbis 13 (Summer 1970)Google Scholar.

41. See Leebaert, Derek, ed., Soviet Military Thinking (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1981)Google Scholar, and Laird, Robbin and Herspring, Dale, The Soviet Union and Strategic Arms (Boulder: Westview Press, 1984)Google Scholar.

42. Meyer, Stephen, “Soviet Perspectives on the Paths to Nuclear War,” in Allison, G. T., Carnesale, A. and Nye, J., eds., Hawks, Doves and Owls (New York: Norton, 1985)Google Scholar.

43. Odom, William E., “The Soviet Approach to Nuclear Weapons: A Historical Review,” The Annals 469 (09 1983)Google Scholar; see Gray, Colin, Nuclear Strategy and National Style (Boston: Hamilton Press, 1986)Google Scholar on this point and for general skepticism about Soviet learning.

44. See the discussion in Nye, Joseph S., Nuclear Ethics (New York: Free Press, 1986), pp.53ff.Google Scholar

45. Conversations at Offut Air Force Base, February 1986. A Soviet example occurred in 1965, when General Talenskii concluded that “in our days there is no more dangerous illusion than the idea that thermonuclear war can still serve as an instrument of politics,” while Lt. Col. Rybkin warned that “any a priori rejection of the possibility of victory is harmful because it leads to moral disarmament, to a disbelief in victory and to fatalism and passivity.” Quoted in Holloway, , Arms Race, p. 164Google Scholar.

46. See Slocombe, Walter, “The Countervailing Strategy,” International Security 5 (Spring 1981)Google Scholar.

47. In the area of mobility, the Americans learned by observing the Soviets. The U.S. Air Force finally decided that garrison basing for rail-mobile missiles might be safe enough after they observed the Soviets using that system for their new SS-24 missile. Interview, Pentagon official, 1987.

48. May, Ernest, “Why Doesn't the United States Have More Nuclear Weapons?” Harvard University, 1986Google Scholar.

49. Gottemoeller, “Decisionmaking for Arms Limitation”; Ploss, Sidney, “A New Soviet Era,” Foreign Policy 62 (Spring 1986), pp. 54–56Google Scholar.

50. George, Alexander, Managing the U.S.-Soviet Rivalry (Boulder: Westview Press, 1983)Google Scholar.

51. Brzezinski, Zbigniew, Game Plan (Boston: Atheneum, 1986), p. 244Google Scholar.

52. Conversations with academicians in Moscow, January 1984.

53. See Barry Blechman, “Efforts by the U.S. and Soviet Union to Reduce Risks of Accidental or Inadvertent War,” Prepared for the Stanford Project on U.S.-Soviet Efforts to Cooperate in Security Matters, May 1986.

54. See Stone, Webster, “The Hot Line,” undergraduate history thesis, Harvard University, 1984Google Scholar. See also Ury, William, Beyond the Hotline (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1985)Google Scholar.

55. See report on the Conference on Permissive Action Links, held at Harvard University Center for Science and International Affairs, February 1986 (forthcoming).

56. See Nye, Joseph S., “Non-Proliferation,” Paper prepared for Stanford Project on U.S.-Soviet Efforts to Cooperate in Security Matters, 05 1986Google Scholar.

57. I agree with Keohane that principles, norms, rules, and procedures shade into each other and are best distinguished as broad and specific injunctions. After Hegemony, p. 59.

58. See Schoenbaum, David, “The World War II Allied Agreement on Occupation and Administration of Postwar Germany,” Paper for Stanford Project on U.S.-Soviet Efforts to Cooperate in Security Matters, 05 1986Google Scholar.

59. See Keliher, John G., The Negotiations on Mutual and Balanced Force Reductions (New York: Pergamon Press, 1981), pp. 25–27Google Scholar.

60. Rice, Condoleeza, “SALT as a Limited Security Regime,” Paper for Stanford Project on U.S.-Soviet Efforts to Cooperate in Security Matters, 05 1986Google Scholar.

61. General Jones, David quoted in Charlton, , Star Wars History, pp. 82–83Google Scholar.

62. Jackson, William D., “Soviet Images of the U.S. as a Nuclear Adversary, 1969–1979,” World Politics 33 (07 1981), p. 637Google Scholar. See also Garthoff, Raymond, “The Soviet Military and SALT,” in Valenta, Viri and Potter, William, eds., Soviet Decisionmaking and National Security (London, Allen & Unwin, 1984), pp. 136ffGoogle Scholar.

63. See Keohane, Robert O., “Reciprocity in International Relations,” International Organization 40 (Winter 1986)Google Scholar.

64. Rostow, Eugene and Perle, Richard quoted in Charlton, , Star Wars History, p. 60, 114.Google Scholar

65. Lynn-Jones, Sean, “A Quiet Success for Arms Control: Preventing Incidents at Sea,” International Security 9 (Spring 1985)Google Scholar.

66. Interview, U.S. State Department, October 1986.

67. Deborah Shapley, “Antarctica: A Case History of Success,” Paper prepared for Stanford Project on U.S.-Soviet Efforts to Cooperate in Security Matters, May 1986.

68. Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984)Google Scholar. See also Alker, Hayward R. and Hurwitz, Roger, Resolving Prisoner's Dilemmas (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT School for International Studies, 1980)Google Scholar.

69. Snidal, Duncan, “Coordination versus Prisoner's Dilemma: Implications for International Cooperation and Regimes,” American Political Science Review 79 (12 1985)Google Scholar.

70. Shevchenko, , Breaking with Moscow, p. 271Google Scholar; Jones, , quoted in Charlton, , Star Wars History, p. 83Google Scholar.

71. Garthoff, Raymond, “Negotiating SALT,” The Wilson Quarterly (Autumn 1977), p. 79Google Scholar.

72. Shevchenko, , Breaking with Moscow, p. 287Google Scholar; Nitze, Paul quoted in Charlton, , Star Wars History, p. 51Google Scholar.

73. See the articles in the special issue of World Politics 38 (10 1985), particularly by Oye, , Jervis, , Axelrod, , and Keohane, Google Scholar.

74. See Keohane, Robert and Nye, Joseph S., “Two Cheers for Multilateralism,” Foreign Policy 60 (Fall 1985)Google Scholar.

75. Bialer, The Soviet Paradox.