| ID | 182037 |
| Title Proper | Action-Reaction” Arms Race Narrative vs. Historical Realities |
| Language | ENG |
| Author | Payne, Keith B ; Trachtenberg, David J ; Dodge, Michaela |
| Summary / Abstract (Note) | Resurgent expressions of an “action-reaction” arms race narrative and its corollary “inaction-inaction” narrative are the basis for frequent assertions that if the United States would only stop its nuclear programs, opponents would also stop building their nuclear force—and a “peace race” would ensue. In other words, U.S. efforts to maintain its deterrence capabilities are seen as sparking or accelerating the “arms race.” This argument has its roots in the 1960s; it has not changed since then. This same claim is now leveled at the contemporary and much-delayed U.S. nuclear modernization program. As in the past, the claim now commonly expressed is that current U.S. efforts to preserve its strategic deterrence forces are the cause of a new action-reaction arms race cycle and should, therefore, be stopped. However, history disproves the action-reaction/inaction-inaction narrative. An examination of numerous documents regarding the development of U.S. strategic policy—including now-declassified governmental and unclassified non-governmental studies and books that that have closely examined this issue—and interviews with a bipartisan group of former officials and knowledgeable academics demonstrates the flaws in this narrative and sets the record straight regarding U.S. policy developments and the factors that drove those developments. |
| `In' analytical Note | Comparative Strategy Vol. 40, No.1-6; 2021: p.521-562 |
| Journal Source | Comparative Strategy Vol: 40 No 1-6 |
| Key Words | Action-Reaction ; Arms Race Narrative ; Historical Realities |