Abstract
The relationship between extended deterrence and nuclear escalation in Europe is a principal component of NATO strategy. This relationship is explained by NATO in at least two very different, and somewhat contradictory, ways. The first way is that extended deterrence is made credible by the ability of one side to dominate the process of escalation or at least to match any move made by the opponent. The second way is that extended deterrence depends upon creating an incalculable and uncontrollable risk of war. Reconciliation of these somewhat consistent and somewhat inconsistent logics may not be required to sustain policy consensus on a day-to-day basis. However, there are other potential costs inherent in this conceptual inconsistency, including a looser grasp by policymakers of the process of escalation control.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.