IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v83y1989i02p503-519_08.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Nuclear Deterrence and the Strategy of Limited Retaliation

Author

Listed:
  • Powell, Robert

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Powell, Robert, 1989. "Nuclear Deterrence and the Strategy of Limited Retaliation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(2), pages 503-519, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:83:y:1989:i:02:p:503-519_08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400083349/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Katsuzo Yamamoto, 2024. "A new formal model analysis of deterrent to brinkmanship and the causes of the armament dilemma," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 36(2), pages 132-155, April.
    2. David Carment & Dane Rowlands, 1998. "Three's Company," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(5), pages 572-599, October.
    3. Erik Gartzke & Matthew Kroenig, 2017. "Social Scientific Analysis of Nuclear Weapons," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(9), pages 1853-1874, October.
    4. Nakao, Keisuke, 2019. "Moving Forward vs. Inflicting Costs in a Random-Walk Model of War," MPRA Paper 96071, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Keisuke Nakao, 2022. "Denial and punishment in war," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(2), pages 166-179, March.
    6. Lisa J. Carlson, 1995. "A Theory of Escalation And International Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 39(3), pages 511-534, September.
    7. Paul K. Huth, 1990. "The Extended Deterrent Value of Nuclear Weapons," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(2), pages 270-290, June.
    8. Michael D. McGinnis, 1992. "Deterrence Theory Discussion: I," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 4(4), pages 443-457, October.
    9. Keisuke Iida, 1993. "When and How Do Domestic Constraints Matter?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(3), pages 403-426, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:83:y:1989:i:02:p:503-519_08. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.