Roles and Phases in Superpower Deterrence and Escalation Control
Published 1990
Published 1990
This Note presents an analysis of possible actions, such as force movements and communications, the United States might take to deter the Soviet Union or other powers during a variety of crisis situations. The analysis examines contingencies and options by using a framework that identifies possible superpower roles and distinguishes among different stylized phases of crisis and conflict. This framework posits and develops three alternative superpower roles: (1) the "True Believer"--an actor in a historic, ideological struggle between Soviet Marxism-Leninism and Western capitalistic liberal democracy; (2) the "Competitor" — a pursuer of national interests in the framework of competing blocs and alliances organized around the great powers and subject to nuclear-era constraints; and (3) the "Stabilizer" — seeking to maintain relative order and to contain risks. The analysis posits four phases in conflict scenarios: opening, posturing, engagement, and concluding. The analysis includes a consideration of the impact of Soviet deterrence actions on the United States and the impact of both U.S. and Soviet deterrence actions on other parties.
This publication is part of the RAND note series. The note was a product of RAND from 1979 to 1993 that reported miscellaneous outputs of sponsored research for general distribution.
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.
RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.