The recent years have witnessed mounting interest, at least in the West, in measures intended to improve both superpowers’ capacity to retain full control of events in any future global crisis, and to terminate the crisis short of nuclear war. These measures, and accompanying practices and perspectives, are generally referred to in the United States as ‘crisis control’ or ‘crisis management’. Representative measures now being discussed or hypothesised include: improvements in the Hotline, the addition of further highspeed communications links, the creation of some type of joint ‘crisis control centre’, various kinds of information-exchange arrangements, and other pre-arranged crisis procedures.
KeywordsEurope Smoke Boulder Clarification Alan
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1.D. Frei and C. Catrina,Risks of Unintentional Nuclear War(Geneva: United Nations Publications, 1982).Google Scholar
- Also D. Frei. Catrina, Risks of Unintentional Nuclear War (Geneva: United Nations Publications, 1982).Google Scholar
- 2.United States Department of Defense, ‘Report to the Congress by Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger on Direct Communications Links and Other Measures to Enhance Stability’, 11 April 1983.Google Scholar
- 3.Roosevelt Center for American Policy Studies, ‘A Nuclear Risk Reduction System’ Report of the Nunn/Warner Working Group on Nuclear Risk Reduction (November 1983).Google Scholar
- 4.J.W. Lewis, and C.D. Blacker, ‘Next Steps in the Creation of an Accidental Nuclear War Prevention Center’. A special Report of the Center for International Security and Arms Control Stanford University (Palo Alto: October 1983).Google Scholar
- 5.W.L. Ury and R. Smoke, ‘Beyond the Hotline: Controlling a Nuclear Crisis’. A Report to the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Nuclear Negotiation Project, Harvard Law School (January 1984).Google Scholar
- 6.A.L. George, Managing U.S.-Soviet Rivalry: Problems of Crisis Prevention (Boulder: Westview Press, 1983).Google Scholar