No More Learning

The only danger is that of an uninterzded collision. The pilot who buzzes obviously wants no collision. (If he did, he could proceed to do it straightforwardly. ) The danger is that he may not avoid accident, through mishandling his aircraft, or misjudging distance, or failure to anticipate the movements of his victim. He has to fly close enough, or recklessly enough, to create an appreciated risk that he may- probably won't, but nevertheless may- fail in his mission and actually collide, to everyone's chagrin including his own.
- -
is not predictable. Whatever it is that makes limited war between great powers a risky thing, the risk is a genuine one that neither side can alto- gether dispel even if it wants to. T o engage in limited war is to start rocking the boat, to set in motion a process that is not al-
4. It may be worth pointing out that, though all attempts to deter or to compel by threat of violence may carry some risk, it is not a necessary character of deterrent threats that they be risky if they are, or try to be, of the full-commitment or trip- wire variety discussed in the preceding chapter. What can make them risky is that they may not work as hoped: they are risky because they may fail. Ideally they would cany no risk. It is part of the logical structure of the threats discussed in this chapter that they entail risk- the risk of being fulfilled--even though they work (or were about to work) as intended. One is risky the way driving a car is always risky: genuine accidents can always occur, no matter how well the car is designed or how carefully it is driven; risk is a fact of life. The other is risky the way certain forms of road- hogging are risky: a genuine risk is incurred, or created, or enhanced, for the purpose of intimidation, a risk that may not be altogether avoided if intimidation is successfully achieved because it may have to operate for a finite period before compliance brings relief. This risk is part of the price of intimidation.
initiative, or misunderstanding may occur -
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 106 ARMS AND INFLUENCE
THE ART OF COMMITMENT 107
breached. One may then try not to maximize the stability of new limits as one passes certain thresholds, but to pass them in a way that dramatizes and emphasizes that the engagement is a dangerous one and that the other side should be eager to call a halt. Deliberately raising the risk of all-out war is thus a tactic that may fit the context of limited war, particularly for the side most discontent with the progress of the war. Introduction of nuclear weapons undoubtedly needs to be evaluated in these terms.
Discussions of troop requirements and weaponry for NATO have been much concerned with the battlefield consequences of different troop strengths and nuclear doctrines. But the battle- field criterion is only one criterion, and when nuclear weapons are introduced it is secondary. The idea that European arma- ment should be designed for resisting Soviet invasion, and is to be judged solely by its ability to contain an attack, is based on the notion that limited war is a tactical operation. It is not.
What that notion overlooks is that a main consequence of limited war, and potentially a main purpose for engaging in it, is to raise the risk of larger war. Limited war does this whether it is intended to or not.
together in one's control. (In the metaphorical language of our chess game, it is to move a queen or a knight across the center line when the other knight or queen is already across, establish- ing a situation in which factors outside the players' control can determine whether or not the thing blows up. ) The risk has to be recognized, because limited war probably does raise the risk of a larger war whether it is intended to or not. It is a conse- quence of limited war that that risk goes up; since it is a consequence, it can also be a purpose.
If we give this interpretation to limited war, we can give a corresponding interpretation to enlargements, or threats of en- largement, of the war. The threat to introduce new weapons, perhaps nuclear weapons, into a limited war is not, according to this argument, to be judged solely according to the immediate military or political advantage, but also according to the delib- erate risk of still larger war that it poses. And we are led in this way to a new interpretation of the trip-wire. The analogy for limited war forces in Europe, or a blockade about Cuba, or troops for the defense of Quemoy, according to this argument,
is not a trip-wire that certainly detonates all-out war if it is in working order and fails altogether if it is not. We have some- thing more like a minefield, with explosives hidden at random; a mine may or may not blow up if somebody starts to traverse the field. The critical feature of the analogy, it should be empha- sized, is that whether or not one of the mines goes off is at least to some extent outside the control of both parties to the engage- ment.
This argument is pertinent to the question not only of wheth- er, but of how, to cross the boundaries in some limited war. If one can gently erode a boundary, easing across it with-out creating some new challenge or a dramatic bid for enemy reprisal, and if one finds the current bounds intolerable, that may be the way to do it if one wants the tactical advantages of relaxing a rule. But if the tactical advantages are unimpressive, one's purpose in enlarging some limited war may be to con- front the enemy with a heightened risk, to bring into question the possibility of finding new limits once a few have been
This point is fundamental to deterrence of anything other than all-out attack on ourselves. And it is fundamental to the
- would be a real danger and would obsess the strategic commands on both sides. This danger is enhanced in a crisis, particularly one involving military activity. It is en- hancedpartlybecauseofthesheerpreoccupationwithit. Andit is enhanced because alarms and incidents will be more frequent, and those who interpret alarms will be readier to act on them. This is also, to a large extent, the purpose of being prepared to fight a local war in Western Europe. The Soviet anticipation of the risks involved in a large-scale attack must include the danger that general war will result. If they underestimate the scale and duration of resistance and do atrack, a purpose of re- sisting is to confront them, day after day, with an appreciation
strategy of limited war. The danger of sudden large war
of
unpremeditated war -
? ? ? ? 108 ARMS AND INFLUENCE
THE ART OF COMMITMENT 109
weapons signal and dramatize this very danger- a danger that is self-aggravating in that the more the danger is recognized, the more likely are the decisions that cause war to occur. This argu- ment is neither for nor against the use of nuclear weapons, but for recognizing that this consequence of their use equals in im- portance- and could far transcend- their tactical battlefield accomplishments.
It is worth noting that this interpretation suggests that the threat of limited war may be potent even when there is little ex- pectation that one could win it.
It is our sheer inability to predict the consequences of our actions and to keep things under control, and the enemy's sim- ilar inability, that can intimidate the enemy (and, of course, us too). If we were in complete control of the consequen-ces and
that life is risky, and that pursuit of the original objective is not worth the risk. - -
This is distantly but only distantly related to the notion that we deter an attack limited to Europe by the announced threat of all-out war. It is different because the danger of war does not depend solely on whether the United States would coolly resolve to launch general war in response to a limited attack in Europe. The credibility of a massive American re- sponse is often depreciated: even in the event of the threatened loss of Europe the United States would not, it is sometimes said, respond to the fait accompli of a Soviet attack on Europe with
? anything as "suicidal" as general war. But that is a simple- minded notion of what makes general war cr-edible. What can
make it exceedingly credib-
the Chinese in the Far East
war can occur whether we intend it or not.
a war we could make no threat that did not depend on our ultimate willingness to
le to the Russians
and perhaps to is that the triggering of general
knew what would and what would not precip-itate war
General war does not depend on our coolly deciding to retali- ate punitively for the invasion of Western Europe after careful consideration of the material and spiritual arguments pro and con. General war could result because we or the Soviets launched it in the mistaken belief that it was already on, or in the mistaken or correct belief that, if we did not start it in- stantly,theothersidewould,Itdoesnotdependonfortitude: it can result from anticipation of the worse consequences of a war that, because of tardiness, the enemy initiates.
And the fear of war that deters the Soviet Union from an at- tack on Europe includes the fear of a general war that they initi- ate. Even if they were confident that they could act first, they would still have to consider the wisdom of an action that might, through forces substantially outside their control, oblige them to start general war.
If nuclear weapons are introduced, the sensed danger of gen- eral war will rise strikingly. Both sides will be conscious of this increased danger. This is partly a matter of sheer expectation; everybody is going to be more tense, and for good reason, once nuclear weapons are introduced. And national leaders will know that they are close to general war if only because nuclear
choose general war.
This is not an argument that "our side" can always win a war
of nerves. (The same analysis applies to "their side" too. ) It is a reminder that between the alternatives of unsuccessful local resistance on the one extreme, and the fruitless, terrifying, and probablyunacceptableandincrediblethreatofgeneralthermo- nuclear war on the other, there is a strategy of risky behavior, of deliberately creating a risk that we share with the enemy, a risk that is credible precisely because its consequences are not entirely within our own and the Soviets' control.
Nuclear Weaponsand the Enhancement of Risk
The introduction of nuclear weapons raises two issues here. One is the actual danger of general war; the other is the role of this danger in our strategy. On the danger itself, one has to guess how likely it is that a sizable nuclear war in Europe can persist, and for how long, without triggering general war. The danger appears great enough to make it unrealistic to expect a tactical nuclear war to "run its course. " Either the nuclear weapons wholly change the bargaining environment, the appreciation of
that we started or a war that the enemy started
? ? ? ? 110 ARMS AND INFLUENCE
THE ART OF COMMITMENT I I I
national leaders as much as anything that is going on in Europe itself. It is the strategic forces whose minute-by-minute behavior on each side will be the main intelligence preoccupation of the other side. 5
Limited and localized nuclear war is not, therefore, a "tacti- cal" war. However few the nuclears used, and however selec- tively they are used, their purpose should not be "tactical" be- cause their consequences will not be tactical. With nuclears, it
as become more than ever a war of risks and threats at the ighest strategic level. It is a war of nuclear bargaining.
There are some inferences for NATO planning. First, nuclear weapons should not be evaluated mainly in terms of what they could do on the battlefield: the decision to introduce them, the way to use them, the targets to use them on, the scale on which to use them, the timing with which to use them, and the com- munications to accompany their use should not be determined (or not mainly determined) by how they affect the tactical course of the local war. Much more important is what they do to the expectation of general war, and what rules or patterns of expectations about local use are created. It is much more a war of dares and challenges, of nerve, of threats and brinkmanship, once the nuclear threshold is passed. This is because the danger of general war, and the awareness of that danger, is lifted an order of magnitude by the psychological and military conse- quences of nuclear explosion.
5. This is why one of the arguments for delegating nuclear authority to theater commanders- as presented in the election campaign of 1964- made little sense. That was the argument that communications between the theater and the American command structure might fail at the moment nuclear weapons were urgently needed. But if the weapons were that urgently needed, especially in the European theater, there would surely be appreciable danger of general war, and to proceed without communicating would guarantee the absence of crucial communication with the Strategic Air Command, the Defense Intelligence Agency, North American Air Defense Command, military forces everywhere, civil defense authorities, and, of course, our diplomatic establishment. It could preclude a choice of what kind of nuclear war to initiate; it could catch the Americans by surprise, and might merely give warning to the Russians.
? risks, and the immediate objectives, and bring about some termination, truce, tranquilization, withdrawal, or pause; or else the local war very likely becomes swamped in a much bigger war. If these are the likely alternatives, we should not take too seriously a nuclear local war plan that goes to great lengths to carry the thing to its bitter end. There is a high probability that the war either will go down by an order of magnitude or go up by an order of magnitude, rather than run the tactical nuclear course that was planned for it.
More important is how we control, utilize, and react to a sud- den increase in the sensed danger of general war. It will be so important to manage this risk properly that the battlefield con- sequences of nuclear weapons may be of minor importance. The hour-by-hour tactical course of the war may not even be worth the attention of the top strategic leadership.
One can question whether we ought to use nuclear weapons deliberately to raise the risk of general war. But unless we are willing to do this, we should not introduce nuclear weapons against an adversary who has nuclear weapons on his side. This raising of risk is so much of the consequence of nuclear weapons that to focus our planning attention on the battlefield may be to ignore what should be getting our main attention (and what would, in the event, get it). Once nuclear weapons are introduced, it is not the same war any longer. The tactical objectives and considerations that governed the original war are no longer controlling. It is now a war of nuclear bargaining and
demonstration.
In a nuclear exchange, even if it nominally involves only the
use of "tactical" weapons against tactically important targets, there will be a conscious negotiating process between two very threatening enemies who are worried that the war will get out of hand. The life expectancy of the local war may be so short that neither side is primarily concerned with what happens on the ground within the next day or two. What each side is doing with its strategic forces would be the main preoccupation. It is the strategic forces in the background that provide the risks and thesenseofdanger;itistheywhosedisposition willpreoccupy
? ? ? ? ? I12 ARMS AND INFLUENCE
Second, as a corollary we should not think that the value or likely success of NATO armed forces depends solely, or even mainly, on whether they can win a local war. Particularly if nu- clears are introduced, the war may never run its course. Even without the introduction of nuclears, a main function of re- sistance forces is to create and prolong a genuine sense of danger, of the potentiality of general war. This is not a danger that we create for the Russians and avoid ourselves; it is a danger we share with them. But it is this deterrent and intimida- tion function that deserves at least as much attention as the tactical military potentialities of the troops.
Third, forces that might seem to be quite "inadequate" by ordinary tactical standards can serve a purpose, particularly if they can threaten to keep the situation in turmoil for some pe- riod of time. The important thing is to preclude a quick, clean Soviet victory that quiets things down in short order.
Fourth, the deployment and equipment of nuclear-armed NATO troops, including the questions of which nationalities have nuclear weapons and which services have them, are affected by the purpose and function and character of nuclear and local war. If what is required is a skillful and well- controlled bargaining use of nuclears in the eventthe decision is taken to go above that threshold, and if the main purpose of nu- clears is not to help the troops on the battlefield, it is much less necessary to decentralize nuclear weapons and decisions to local commanders. The strategy will need tight centralized control; it may not require the kind of close battlefield support that is
often taken to justify distribution of small nuclears to the troops; and nuclears probably could be reserved to some special nuclear forces.
Fifth, if the main consequence of nuclear weapons, and the purpose of introducing them, is to create and signal a height- ened risk of general war, our plans should reflect that purpose.
THE ART OF COMMITMENT 113
veys to the Soviet leadership. Targets should be picked with a view to what the Soviet leadership perceives about the character of the war and about our intent, not for tactical importance. A target near or inside the U. S. S. R. , for example, is important be- cause it is near or inside the U. S. S. R. , not because of its tactical contribution to the European battlefield. A target in a city is important because a city is destroyed, not because it is a local supply or communication center. The difference between one weapon, a dozen, a hundred, or a thousand is not in the number of targets destroyed but in the Soviet (and American) percep- tion of risks, intent, precedent, and implied "proposal" for the conduct or termination of war.
Extra targets destroyed by additional weapons are not a local military "bonus. " They are noise that may drown the message. They are a "proposal" that must be responded to. And they are an added catalyst to general war. This is an argument for a se- lective and threatening use of nuclears rather than large-scale tactical use. (It is an argument for large-scale tactical use only if such use created the level of risk we wish to create. ) Success in the use of nuclears will be measured not by the targets de- stroyed but by how well we manage the level of risk. The So- viets must be persuaded that the war is getting out of hand but is not yet beyond the point of no return.
Sixth, we have to expect the Soviets to pursue their own policy of exploiting the risk of war. W e cannot expect the Sovi- ets to acquiesce in our unilateral nuclear demonstration. We have to be prepared to interpret and to respond to a Soviet nu- clear "counterproposal. " Finding a way to terminate will be as important as choosing how to initiate such an exchange. (We should not take wholly for granted that the initiation would be ours. )
Finally, the emphasis here is that the use of nuclear weapons would create exceptional danger. This is not an argument in favor of their use; it is an argument for recognizing that danger is the central feature of their use.
In other words, nuclears would not only destroy targets but would signal something. Getting the right signal across would be
? ? ? ? ? ? We should plan -
-
a war of nerve, of demonstration, and of bargaining, not just target destruction for local tactical purposes. Destroying a target may be incidental to the message that the detonation con-
in the event of resort to nuclear weapons
for
? ? ? 114 ARMS AND 1NFLUENCE
an important part of the policy. This could imply, for example, deliberate and restrained use earlier than might otherwise seem tactically warranted, in order to leave the Soviets under no illu- sion whether or not the engagement might become nuclear. The only question then would be, how nuclear. It is not necessarily prudent to wait until the last desperate moment in a losing en- gagement to introduce nuclear weapons as a last resort. By the time they are desperately needed to prevent a debacle, it may be too late to use them carefully, discriminatingly, with a view to the message that is communicated, and with the maintenance
of adequate control. Whenever the tactical situation indicates a high likelihood of military necessity for nuclears in the near fu- ture, it may be prudent to introduce them deliberately while there is still opportunity to do so with care, selection, and a properly associated diplomacy. Waiting beyond that point may simply increase the likelihood of a tactical use, possibly an in- discriminate use, certainly a decentralized use, determined by the tactical necessities of the battlefield rather than the strategic necessities of deterrence.
In its extreme form the restrained, signaling, intimidating use of nuclears for brinkmanship has sometimes been called the "shotacrossthebow. "Thereisalwaysadanger- Churchilland othershavewarnedagainstit-of makingabolddemonstration on so small a scale that the contrary of boldness is demon- strated. There is no cheap, safe way of using nuclears that scares the wits out of the Russians without scaring us too. Neverthe- less, any use of nuclears is going to change the pattern of expectations about the war. It is going to rip a tradition of
inhibition on their use. It is going to change everyone's expecta- tions about the future use of nuclears. Even those who have arguedthatnuclearsoughttobeconsideredjustamoreefficient kind of artillery will surely catch their breath when the first one goes off in anger. Something is destroyed, even if not enemy targets, if ever-so-few nuclears are used. Whatever a few nu- clears prove, or fail to prove about their user, they will change the environment of expectations. And it is expectations more
THE ART OF COMMlTMENT 115
than anything else that will determine the outcome of a limited East- West military engagement.
It is sometimes argued, quite correctly, that this tradition can be eroded, and the danger of "first use" reduced, by introducing nuclear weapons in some "safe" fashion, gradually getting the world used to nuclear weapons and dissipating the drama of nuclear explosions. Nuclear depth charges at sea, small nuclear warheads in air-to-air combat, or nuclear demolitions on de- fended soil may seem comparativelyfree of the danger of unlim- itedescalation,causenomorecivildisruptionthanTNT,appear responsible, and set new traditions for actual use, includ- ing the tradition that nuclear weapons can be used without sig- nalingall-outwar. Obviouslytoexploitthisideaoneshouldnot wait until nuclear weapons are desperately needed in a serious crisis, but deliberately initiate them in a carefully controlled fashion at a time and place chosen for the purpose. It might not be wise and might not be practical, but if the intent is to remove the curse from nuclear weapons, this may be the way to do it.
Among the several objections there is one that may be over- looked even by the proponents of nuclear "legitimization. " That is the waste involved- the waste of what is potentially the most dramatic military event since Pearl Harbor. President Johnson,remember,referredtoanineteen-yeartraditionofnon- use; the breaking of that tradition (which grows longer with each passing year) will probably be, especially if it is designed to be, a most stunning event. It will signal a watershed in mili- tary history, will instantly contradict war plans and military ex- pectations, wilf generate suspense and apprehension, and will probably startle even those who make the decision.
The first post-Nagasaki detonation in combat will probably be evi- dence of a complex and anguished decision, an embarkation on ajourney into a new era of uncertainty. Even those who propose readier use of nuclear weapons must appreciate that this is so, because of the strong inhibitions they encounter during the dispute.
This is not an event to be squandered on an unworthy mili-
? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 116 ARMS AND INFLUENCE
THE ART OF COMMITMENT I17
before they were old enough to drive and before automobiles were invented. The earliest instance I have come across, in a race with horse-drawn vehicles, antedates the auto by some time:
The road here led through a gully, and in one part the win- ter flood had broken down part of the road and made a hol-low. Menelaos was driving in the middle of the road, hoping that no one would try to pass too close to his wheel, but Antilochos turned his horses out of the track and followed him a little to one side. This frightened Menelaos, and he shouted at him:
"What reckless driving Antilochos! Hold in your horses. This place is narrow, soon you will have more room to pass. You will foul my car and destroy us both! "
But Antilochos only plied the whip and drove faster than ever, as if he did not hear. They raced about as far as the cast of quoit . . . and then [Menelaos] fell behind: he let the horses go slow himself, for he was afraid that they might all collide in that narrow space and overturn the cars and fall in a struggling heap.
This game of chicken tookplace outside the gates of Troy three thousand years ago. Antilochos won, though Homer says
? tary objective. The first nuclear detonation can convey a mes- sage of utmost seriousness; it may be a unique means of communicationinamomentofunusualgravity. Todegradethe signalinadvance,todepreciatethecurrency,toerodegradually a tradition that might someday be shattered with diplomatic effect, to vulgarize weapons that have acquired a transcendent status, and to demote nuclear weapons to the status of merely efficient artillery, may be to waste an enormous asset of last re- sort. One can probably not, with effect, throw down a gauntlet if he is known to toss his gloves about on every provocation. One may reasonably choose to vulgarize nuclear weapons through a campaign to get people used to them; but to proceed to use them out of expediency, just because they would be tactically advantageous and without regard to whether they
ought to be cheapened, would be shortsighted in the extreme.
Face,Nerve,and Expectations
? Cold war politics have been likened, by Bertrand Russell and others, to the game of "chicken. " This is described as a game in which two teen-age motorists head for each other on a highway - usuallylate at night, with their gangs and girlfriends looking
? -
who does is then called "chicken. "
on
to see which of the two will first swerve aside. The one
The better analogy is with the less frivolous contest of chicken that is played out regularly on streets and highways by people who want their share of the road, or more than their share, or who want to be first through an intersection or at least not kept waiting indefinitely.
"Chicken" is notjust a game played by delinquent teen-agers with their hot-rods in southern California; it is a universal form of adversary engagement. It is played not only in the Berlin air corridor but by Negroes who want to get their children into schools and by whites who want to keep them out; by rivals at a meeting who both raise their voices, each hoping the other will yield the floor to avoid embarrassment; as well as by drivers of both sexes and all ages at all times of day. Children played it
somewhatungenerously
"by trick, not by merit. "
-
-Even the game in its stylized teen-age automobile form is
worth examining. Most noteworthy is that the game virtually disappears if there is no uncertainty, no unpredictability. If the two cars, instead of driving continuously, took turns advancing exactly fifty feet at a time toward each other, a point would be reached when the next move would surely result in collision. Whichever driver has that final turn will not, and need not, drive deliberately into the other. This is no game of nerve. The lady who pushes her child's stroller across an intersection in front of a car that has already come to a dead stop is in no par- ticular danger as long as she sees the driver watching her: even
6 The Iliad, W H D Rouse, trand (Mentor Books, 19501, p 273
? ? ? 118 ARMS AND INFLUENCE
THE ART OF COMMITMENT I19
? ? if the driver prefers not to give her the right of way she has the winning tactic and gets no score on nerve. The more instruc- tive automobile form of the game is the one people play as they crowd each other on thehighway,jockey their way through an intersection, or speed up to signal to a pedestrian that he'd better not cross yet. These are the cases in which, like Antil- ochos' chariot, things may get out of control; no one can trust with certainty that someone will have the "last clear chance" to
Another important characteristic is that, though the two play- ers are cast as adversaries, the game is somewhat collaborative. Even in the stylized version in which they straddle the white line, there is at least an advantage in understanding that, when a player does swerve, he will swerve to the right and not to the left! And the players may try to signal each other to try to co- ordinate on a tie; if each can swerve a little, indicating that he will swerve a little more if the other does too, and if their speeds are not too great to allow some bargaining, they may manage to turn at approximately the same time, neither being proved chicken.
They may also collaborate in declining to play the game. This is a little harder. When two rivals are coaxed by their friends to have it out in a fight, they may manage to shrug it off skillfully,
? avert tragedy and will pull back in time.
These various games of chicken- the genuine ones that in-
volve some real unpredictability- have some characteristics that are worth noting. One is that, unlike those sociable games it takes two to play, with chicken it takes two not to play. If you are publicly invited to play chicken and say you would rather not, you have just played.
at stake but reputations, expectations, and precedents. That is, accommodation or obstinacy, boldness or surrender, merely establishes who is an accommodator, who is obstinate or bold, who tends to surrender or what order of precedence is to be observed. A second, not easily distinguished in practice, occurs when something is consciously put at stake (as in a gambling game or trial by ordeal) such as leadership, deference, popularity, some agreed tangible prize, or the outcome of certain issues in dispute. (The duel between David and Goliath, mentioned in the note on page 144, is an example of putting something at stake. ) The third, which might be called the "real" in contrast to the "conventional," is the case in which yielding or withdrawing yields something that the dispute is about, as in road- hogging or military probes: that is, the gains and losses are part of the immediate structure of the contest, not attached by convention nor resulting entirely from expectations established for future events. The process of putting something at
? Second, what is in dispute is usually not the issue of the mo- ment, but everyone's expectations about how a participant will behave in the future. To yield may be to signal that one can be expected to yield; to yield often or continually indicates acknowl- edgment that that is one's role. To yield repeatedly up to some limit and then to say "enough" may guarantee that the first show of obduracy loses the game for both sides. If you can get a rep- utationforbeingreckless,demanding,orunreliable- and appar- ently hot-rods, taxis, and cars with "driving school" license plates sometimes enjoy this advantage- you may find conces-
sions made to you. (The driver of a wide American car on a narrow European street is at less of a disadvantage than a static calculation would indicate. The smaller cars squeeze over to give him room. ) Between these extremes, one can get a reputa- tion for being firm in demanding an appropriate share of the road but not aggressively challenging about the other's half. Un- fortunately, in less stylized games than the highway version, it is often hard to know just where the central or fair or expected division should lie, or even whether there should be any recog- nition of one contestant's claim. 7
7. Analytically there appear to be at least three different motivational structures in a contest of "chicken. " One is the pure "test case," in which nothing is
- stake
? if what is at stake involves third parties- may not be within the control of the participants; nor, in the second and third cases, can future expectations be disassociated (unless, as in momentary road-hogging, the participants are anonymous). So most actual instances are likely to be mixtures. (The same distinctions can be made for tests of endurance rather than risk: wealthy San Franciscans were reported to settle disputes by a "duel" that involved throwing gold coins into the hay, one after the other, until one was ready to quit: and the "potlatch" in both its primitive and its contemporary forms is a contest for status and reputation. ) A fourth and a fifth case may also deserve recognition: the case of sheer play for excitement, which is probably not confined to teen-agers, and the case of "joint ordeal" in which the contest, though nominally between two (or among more than two) contestants, involves no adversary relation between them, and each undergoes a unilateral test or defends his honor independently of the other's.
? ? ? ? ? ? 120 ARMS AND INFLUENCE
THE ART OF COMMITMENT
but only if neither comes away looking exclusively responsible for turning down the opportunity. Both players can appreciate a rule that forbids play; if the cops break up the game before it starts, so that nobody plays and nobody is proved chicken, many and perhaps all of the players will consider it a great night, especially if their ultimate willingness to play was not doubted.
In fact, one of the great advantages of international law and custom, or an acknowledged code of ethics, is that a country may be obliged not to engage in some dangerous rivalry when it would actually prefer not to but might otherwise feel obliged to for the sake of its bargaining reputation. The boy who wears glasses and can't see without them cannot fight if he wants to; but if he wants to avoid the fight it is not so obviously for lack of nerve. (Equally good, if he'd prefer not to fight but might feel
obliged to, is to have an adversary who wears glasses. Both can hope that at least one of them is honorably precluded fromjoin- ing the issue. ) One of the values of laws, conventions, or tradi- tions that restrain participation in games of nerve is that they provide a graceful way out. If one's motive for declining is manifestly not lack of nerve, there are no enduring costs in re- fusing to compete.
Since these tests of nerve involve both antagonism and co- operation, an important question is how these two elements should be emphasized. Should we describe the game as one in which the players are adversaries, with a modest admixture of common interest? Or should we describe the players as part- ners, with some temptation toward doublecross?
121
emphasis between the antagonistic and the collaborative mo- tives, a distinction should be made. The distinction is between a game of chicken to which one has been deliberately challenged by an adversary, with a view to proving his superior nerve, and a game of chicken that events, or the activities of bystanders, have compelled one into along with one's adversary. If one is repeatedly challenged, or expected to be, by an opponent who wishestoimpose dominanceortocauseone'salliestoabandon him in disgust, the choice is between an appreciable loss and a fairly aggressive response. If one is repeatedly forced by events into a test of nerve along with an opponent, there is a strong case for developing techniques and understandings for minimiz- ing the mutual risk.
In the live world of international relations it is hard to be sure which kind of crisis it is. The C u b m crisis of October 1962 was about as direct a challenge as one could expect, yet much of the subsequent language of diplomacy and journalism re- ferredtoPremier Khrushchev'sandPresidentKennedy'shaving found themselves together on the brink and in need of states- manship to withdraw together. 8The Budapest uprising of 1956 was as near to the opposite pole as one could expect, neither East norWest havingdeliberatelycreatedthesituationasatest of nerve, and the Soviet response not appearing as a direct test of Western resolve to intervene. Yet expectations about later American or allied behavior were affected by our declining to acknowledge that events had forced us into a test. This appears to have been a case in which the United States had a good ex-
8. "Brinkmanship" has few friends, "chicken" even fewer, and I can see why most people are uneasy about what, in an earlier book, I called "the threat that leaves some- thing to chance. " There is, though, at least one good word to be said for threats that intentionally involve some loss of control or some generation of "crisis. " It is that this kind of threat may be more impersonal, more "external" to the participants; the threat becomes part of the environment rather than a test of will between two adversaries. The adversary may find it easier- less costly in prestige or self-respect- to back away from a risky situation, even if we created the situation, than from a threat that is backed exclusively by our resolve and determination. He can even, in backing away, blame us for irresponsibility, or take credit for saving us both from the consequences. Khrushchev was able to claim, after the Cuban crisis, that he had pulled back
? ? ? ? This question arises in real crises, not just games. Is a Berlin c r i s i s - o r a Cuban crisis, a Quemoy crisis, a Hungarian crisis,
? or a crisis in the Gulf of Tonkin -
mainly bilateral competi- tion in which each side should be motivated mainly toward win-
ning over the other? Or is it a shared danger
a case of both
being pushed to the brink of war -
bearance, collaborative withdrawal, and prudent negotiation should dominate?
It is a matter of emphasis, not alternatives, but in distributing
-
in which statesmanlike for-
? ? ? 122 ARMS AND INFLUENCE
THE ART OF COMMITMENT 123
and potent. It would be hard to design a war, involving the forces of East and West on any scale, in which the risk of its getting out of control were not of commensurate importance with the other costs and dangers involved. Limited war, as re- marked earlier, is like fighting in a canoe. A blow hard enough to hurt is in some danger of overturning the canoe. One may stand up to strike a better blow, but if the other yields it may not have been the harder blow that worried him.
How does one get out of playing chicken if he considers it dangerous, degrading, or unprofitable? How would the United States and the Soviet Union, if they both wished to, stop feeling obliged to react to every challenge as if their reputations were continually at stake? How can they stop competing to see who will back down first in a risky encounter?
First, as remarked before, it takes at least two not to play this kind of game. (At least two, because there may be more than two participants and because bystanders have so much influ- ence. ) Second, there is no way in the short run that, by turning over a new leaf, one can cease measuring his adversary by how he reacts to danger, or cease signaling to an adversary one's own intentions and values by how one reacts to danger. Confi- dence has to be developed. Some conventions or traditions must be allowed to grow. Confidence and tradition take time. Stable expectations have to be constructed out of successful experi- ence, not all at once out of intentions.
It would help if each decided not to dare the other again but only to react to challenges. But this will not turn the trick. The definition of who did the challenging will not be the same on both sides. At what point a sequence of actions becomes a deliberate affront is a matter ofjudgment. Challenges thrust on East and West will never be wholly unambiguous as to whether they were created by one side to test the other or to gain at the other's expense. If all challenges were clear as to origin and could only arise by deliberate intent of the adversary, a condi- tional cessation would quiet things once for all. But not all crises are so clear in interpretation. And there is too much at stake for either to sit back and be unresponsive for a period
cuse to remain outside, and chose even to take that position officially.
The Berlin wall is an ambiguous case. The migration of East Germans can be adduced as the impelling event, not a deliber- ate Soviet decision to challengethe allied powers. Yet there was something of a dare both in the way it was done and in its being done at all. The Berlin wall illustrates that someone forced into a game of chicken against his better judgment may, if all goeswell,profitnevertheless. TheU-2incidentof 1960isinter- esting in the wealth of interpretations that can be placed on it; a U S . challenge to Soviet resolve, a Soviet challenge to U. S. resolve, or an autonomous incident creating embarrassment for both sides.
A good illustration of two parties collaborating to avoid being thrust into a test of nerve was the Soviet and American response to the Chinese- Indian crisis of late 1962. It probably helped both sides that they had ready excuses, even good rea- sons, for keeping their coats on. For anyone who does not want to be obliged into a gratuitous contest, just to preserve his reputation and expectations about future behavior, a good ex-
cuse is a great help.
It may seem paradoxical that with today's weapons of speedy
destruction brinkmanship would be so common. Engaging in well-isolated small wars or comparatively safe forms of harass- ment ought to be less unattractive than wrestling on the brink of a big war. But the reason why most contests, military or not, will be contests of nerve is simply that brinkmanship is un- avoidable
from the brink of war, not that he had backed away from President Kennedy. It is prudent to pull out of a risky situation- especially one that threatens everyone- where it might appear weak to pull away from the threatening opponent. If war could have arisen only out of a deliberate decision by President Kennedy, one based on cool resolve, Khrushchev would have been backing away from a resolved American President; but because the risk seemed inherent in the situation, the element of personal challenge was somewhat diluted. In the same way a rally or a protest march carries the threat of an unintended riot; officials may yield in the interest of law and order, finding it easier to submit to the danger of accident or incident than to submit directly to a threat of deliberate violence.
? ? ? ? ? ? ? 124 ARMS AND INFLUENCE
long enough to persuade the other that it can safely relax too. What is at stake is not only the risk of being exploited by one's partner. There is also the risk that the other will genuinely misinterpret how far he is invited to go. If one side yields on a series of issues, when the matters at stake are not critical, it may be difficult to communicate to the other just when a vital issue has been reached. It might be hard to persuade the Soviets, if
the United States yielded on Cuba and then on Puerto Rico, that it would go to war over Key West. No service is done to the other side by behaving in a way that undermines its belief in one'sultimatefirmness. Itmaybesaferinalongruntohewto the center of the road than to yield six inches on successive nights, if one really intends to stop yielding before he is pushed onto the shoulder. It may save both parties a collision.
It is often argued that "face" is a frivolous asset to preserve, and that it is a sign of immaturity that a government can't swal- low its pride and lose face. It is undoubtedly true that false pride often tempts a governme-nt's officials to take irrational risks or to do undignified things to bully some small country that insults them, for example. But there is also the more seri- ous kind of "face," the kind that in modern jargon is known as a country's "image," consisting of other countries' beliefs (their leaders' beliefs, that is) about how the country can be expected to behave. It relates not to a country's "worth" or "status" or even "honor," but to its reputation for action. If the question is raised whether this kind of "face" is worth fighting over, the an- swer is that this kind of face is one of the few things worth fight- ing over. Few parts of the world are intrinsically worth the risk of serious war by themselves, especially when taken slice by
slice, but defending them or running risks to protect them may preserve one's commitments to action in other parts of the world and at later times. "Face" is merely the interdependence of a country's commitments; it is a country's reputation for action,theexpectationsothercountrieshaveaboutitsbehavior. We lost thirty thousand dead in Korea to save face for the United States and the United Nations, not to save South Korea for the South Koreans, and it was undoubtedly worth it. Soviet
THE MANIPULA TION OF RISK 125
expectations about the behavior of the United States are one of the most valuable assets we possess in world affairs.
Still, the value of "face" is not absolute. That preserving face- maintaining others' expectations about one's own behavior- can be worth some cost and risk does not mean that in every instance it is worth the cost or risk of that occasion. In particular, "face" should not be allowed to attach itself to an unworthy enterprise if aclash is inevitable. Like any threat, the commitment of face is costly when it fails. Equally important is to help to decouple an adversary's prestige and reputation from a dispute; if we cannot afford to back down we must hope that he can and, if necessary, help him.
It would be foolish, though, to believe that no country has in- terests in conflict that are worth some risk of war. Some coun- tries' leaders play chicken because they have to, some because of its efficacy. "Nothing ventured, nothing gained. " If the main participants wish to stop it, the game can probably be stopped, but not all at once, not without persistence, some luck, and recognition that it will take time. And, of course, there is no guarantee that the cars will not collide.
? ?