Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Sagan Waltz 1995
Sagan Waltz 1995
Military officers think war is more likely in the long run than does general population, and plan
incrementally, and focus on narrow responsibilities, not necessarily long term planning.
Main Hypotheses:
Waltz:
Spread of nukes
Assumptions:
Waltz: State is basically rational, self-preserving, and risk averse in the sense that it
wont risk large-scale destruction of itself, even if the chances are small, so long as the
chances are not zero.
Doesnt matter if the state is not unitary enough people in the decision-making
processes will conform to the rationality assumptions to allow us to infer unitary
preferences.
Sagan: State is not unitary, not necessarily rational, and subject to miscalculations and
accidents. Cost benefit calculation not really applicable.
Empirics
Waltz: Looks at the history of last 50 years argues that it fits his theory and explains
away events that dont fit such as why Israel continues to spend more and more on
defense after it got nukes (subsidized by U.S., it can afford to do that). Cold War shows
nukes helped to maintain stability and preserve peace when there was instability.
Sagan: Looks primarily at U.S. history, looks for evidence of organizational influence on
nuclear development. Of course, he finds support for his own views. Ex. Even when
Soviet missiles during the Cuban Missile Crisis became operational, the Joint Chief of
Staff recommended that the U.S. attack the sites and invade Cuba (implicit in this
example is the argument that preventive war didnt happen only because civilian controls
on the American military were present)
Critiques
Both authors are quite speculative and give different supporting examples for their
theories and excuse away empirics that dont fit their contentions. They also dont test the
theories head to head Waltz doesnt look at the influence of organizational theory on
outcomes, merely assumes they dont matter. The bottom line is the empirics dont show
either is right or wrong.
Where this fits in the literature: Realism v. organizational theory, rational state v.
bureaucratic politics models.