Discover

'Brinkmanship' is the practice of pushing a dangerous situation to the verge of disaster in order to achieve the most advantageous outcome. It occurs in international politics, foreign policy and (in contemporary settings) in military strategy involving the threatened use of nuclear weapons.
This maneuver of pushing a situation to the brink succeeds by forcing the opposition to back down and make concessions. This might be achieved through diplomatic maneuvers by creating the impression that one is willing to use extreme methods rather than concede. During the Cold War, the threat of nuclear force was often used as such an escalating measure.

Contents

Origins

Benefits

Dangers

References

See also

External links

Origins

The term ''brinkmanship'' was introduced during the Cold War by United States Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, who advocated such a one-upmanship policy against the Soviet Union. In an article published in Life Magazine, Dulles defined the policy of brinkmanship as "the ability to get to the verge without getting into the war". His critics blamed him for damaging relations with communist states and contributing to the Cold War.
Brinkmanship is ostensibly the escalation of threats to achieve one's aims. Eventually, the threats involved might become so huge as to be unmanageable at which point both sides are likely to back down. This was the case during the Cold War, as the escalation of threats of nuclear war is mutually suicidal.

Benefits

Brinkmanship became very important in United States foreign policy during Dwight D. Eisenhower's presidency. The American public sought to win the Cold War and also wanted lower taxes. Brinkmanship was a cheap alternative to fighting actual wars.

Dangers

The dangers of brinkmanship as a political or diplomatic tool can be understood as a slippery slope: In order for brinkmanship to be effective, the threats used are continuously escalated. However, a threat is not worth anything unless it is credible; at some point, the aggressive party may have to back up its claim to prove its commitment to action. The further one goes, the greater the chance of things sliding out of control. The chance that things may go out of control is a key element in providing credibility to this threat. i.e. Kennedy was not willing to start a nuclear war over the Cuban Missile Crisis, but he was willing to risk the start of a nuclear war which was a more believable threat.
The British intellectual Bertrand Russell compared nuclear brinkmanship to the game of chicken^[1]. The principle between the two is the same, to create immense pressure in a situation until one person or party backs down.

References

1. Russel, B. W. (1959) ''Common Sense and Nuclear Warfare'' London: George Allen & Unwin, p30

See also

★ Cold War

★ Cuban Missile Crisis

★ John Foster Dulles

★ Massive Retaliation

★ Mutual assured destruction

★ Balance of terror

★ Game theory

★ International crisis

External links

★ An analysis of brinkmanship tactics used during the Cuban missile crisis