Another quick takeaway: the US planned on making the first nuclear strike on Russia and China throughout the Cold War. Today we have a perception that the US only plans for using a second strike, but almost the entirety of planning material is based on the supposition of the US using nuclear weapons first. Again, there’s little reason to suspect this has changed now.
I do recall Ellsberg claiming that the US plans were based on striking first. But interestingly, in a summary of key points from another book on nuclear war (The Dead Hand), Kit writes:
Through much of the Cold War, USSR leadership believed that the USA might launch a surprise nuclear attack on the USSR. US leadership considered this out of the question, in large part because it seemed implausible that an aggressor could ‘win’ a nuclear war, though some USSR and US generals did believe in the idea of ‘winning’ a nuclear war. Further, when NATO spies got hold of documents written by USSR leadership detailing a project to notice signs of the USA preparing a first strike, key US figures thought it was more likely that this was part of a propaganda campaign against the USA or against the intermediate-range Pershing missiles being stationed in Europe than that USSR leadership really thought the USA might launch a first strike.
So now I feel unsure whether to trust Ellsberg or trust The Dead Hand (assuming Kit’s summary accurately reflects its claims). (Or maybe there’s some way to reconcile the two sets of claims which I’m not currently seeing?)
I’m not an expert on the topic and don’t have sources on hand that would make the argument in greater detail, but I did take a course on ‘The global nuclear regime’ (broadly about institutional developments surrounding nuclear material and weapons control since 1945) and based on my knowledge from that, I’d suggest that there is a way to reconcile the two sets of claims.
First, I think it’s important to distinguish between ‘surprise attack’ and ‘first strike’. The former is obviously a subset of the latter, but there are also other conceivable kinds of first strike attacks. Surprise attack, to me, sounds like an attack that is launched without an immediate trigger, with the purpose of hitting (and eliminating or severly weakening) an adversary unexpectedly. A nuclear first strike might, instead, be considered in a situation where a conflict is escalading to a point that a nuclear strike by the other party seems to be growing more likely. It might be considered as an instrument to prevent the other party from launching their missiles by hitting them first (e.g. because the costs of waiting for them to launch before counter-striking are considered unacceptable). This comes down to definitions, ultimately, but I think I wouldn’t describe such a first strike as a surprise attack.
Second, there is not necessarily a contradiction between there being plans for first- rather than second-strike attacks and US officials expressing doubts about the USSR’s belief in US willingness to actually conduct a first strike. The US figures you mention might have thought that in that moment, the likelihood of a US first-strike was really low and that hence it would’ve been surprising for the USSR to start the detection project at that moment. These US figures might also have been disingenious or biased when assessing the honesty of the USSR leadership (I would argue that the tendency to attach hidden, often propagandistics, motives to ‘enemy leaders’ - without strong evidence base or even a coherent plausibility argument as support—is fairly common among US ‘hawks’). Debending on who the key US figures mentioned in your summary are (unfortunately, I haven’t read The Dead Hand), it might also be that they just weren’t aware of the first strike plans of the US. Lastly (and I don’t consider that one super likely), it might be that the US figures just thought that the Soviet leadership wouldn’t expect a US first strike in spite of the plans for it (either because the Soviets didn’t know about the plans, or because they didn’t think the US was likely to act on them).
I think it’s important to distinguish between ‘surprise attack’ and ‘first strike’...
I’d guess that this is probably the main thing that explains the contrasts between the two quotes.
The US figures you mention might have thought that in that moment, the likelihood of a US first-strike was really low and that hence it would’ve been surprising for the USSR to start the detection project at that moment
I doubt that this is can help much in explaining the contrast, since the quote from Kit’s summary of The Dead Hand sounds like it applies across a large time period, rather than just at a smaller handful of key points. (Though of course, Kit’s summary may be very slightly misleading on certain nuanced points.)
Debending on who the key US figures mentioned in your summary are (unfortunately, I haven’t read The Dead Hand), it might also be that they just weren’t aware of the first strike plans of the US.
I also don’t think this is likely to be a major part of the explanation, as I think it was pretty well known among US military and political leaders that the US had first strike plans. I’m not sure of this, though.
I do recall Ellsberg claiming that the US plans were based on striking first. But interestingly, in a summary of key points from another book on nuclear war (The Dead Hand), Kit writes:
So now I feel unsure whether to trust Ellsberg or trust The Dead Hand (assuming Kit’s summary accurately reflects its claims). (Or maybe there’s some way to reconcile the two sets of claims which I’m not currently seeing?)
I’m not an expert on the topic and don’t have sources on hand that would make the argument in greater detail, but I did take a course on ‘The global nuclear regime’ (broadly about institutional developments surrounding nuclear material and weapons control since 1945) and based on my knowledge from that, I’d suggest that there is a way to reconcile the two sets of claims.
First, I think it’s important to distinguish between ‘surprise attack’ and ‘first strike’. The former is obviously a subset of the latter, but there are also other conceivable kinds of first strike attacks. Surprise attack, to me, sounds like an attack that is launched without an immediate trigger, with the purpose of hitting (and eliminating or severly weakening) an adversary unexpectedly. A nuclear first strike might, instead, be considered in a situation where a conflict is escalading to a point that a nuclear strike by the other party seems to be growing more likely. It might be considered as an instrument to prevent the other party from launching their missiles by hitting them first (e.g. because the costs of waiting for them to launch before counter-striking are considered unacceptable). This comes down to definitions, ultimately, but I think I wouldn’t describe such a first strike as a surprise attack.
Second, there is not necessarily a contradiction between there being plans for first- rather than second-strike attacks and US officials expressing doubts about the USSR’s belief in US willingness to actually conduct a first strike. The US figures you mention might have thought that in that moment, the likelihood of a US first-strike was really low and that hence it would’ve been surprising for the USSR to start the detection project at that moment. These US figures might also have been disingenious or biased when assessing the honesty of the USSR leadership (I would argue that the tendency to attach hidden, often propagandistics, motives to ‘enemy leaders’ - without strong evidence base or even a coherent plausibility argument as support—is fairly common among US ‘hawks’). Debending on who the key US figures mentioned in your summary are (unfortunately, I haven’t read The Dead Hand), it might also be that they just weren’t aware of the first strike plans of the US. Lastly (and I don’t consider that one super likely), it might be that the US figures just thought that the Soviet leadership wouldn’t expect a US first strike in spite of the plans for it (either because the Soviets didn’t know about the plans, or because they didn’t think the US was likely to act on them).
Good points, thanks!
I’d guess that this is probably the main thing that explains the contrasts between the two quotes.
I doubt that this is can help much in explaining the contrast, since the quote from Kit’s summary of The Dead Hand sounds like it applies across a large time period, rather than just at a smaller handful of key points. (Though of course, Kit’s summary may be very slightly misleading on certain nuanced points.)
I also don’t think this is likely to be a major part of the explanation, as I think it was pretty well known among US military and political leaders that the US had first strike plans. I’m not sure of this, though.