Cole Gordner
While discussing the Bargaining Theory of War in class I noticed that a lot of the key concepts of this theory went hand-in-hand with the Cuban Missile Crisis of the 1960's. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a two-week period of time in 1962 in which the Soviet Union placed several armed missiles in Cuba and aimed them at the United States. They were placed there in order for the Soviet Union to assert a sense of dominance over the United States.
America obviously had to react fast as the threat of all out nuclear war occurring at any moment was very real. The IR Bargaining Theory of War states that war is never an ideal route to take and this was demonstrated by the U.S. as they tried to come up with a solution to this problem. President Kennedy and the rest of the United States knew that if they were to declare war on the Soviet Union each state would commence firing missiles at one another and total destruction of each party would surely be the outcome.
The U.S. essentially had only one viable option during this time of crisis, negotiate with the Soviet Union and reach some agreement that will have them remove their missiles from Cuba and dismantle this nuclear threat. Once again, this fits right into the Bargain Theory which explains that a striking a deal is always preferable for both sides than actually going to war. The Soviet Union was clearly looking for something from the U.S. when they set up their missiles and they also probably never actually anticipated firing them as they also foresaw mutually assured destruction.
President Kennedy promptly began negotiations with the Soviet Union and worked to meet an agreement. After only a couple days of talking, an arrangement had been met. The Soviet Union removed their missiles from Cuba and the United States agreed to remove their missiles from European countries like Turkey and Italy which posed a threat to them. The U.S. also agreed to not invade Cuba or support any troops going into Cuba. This was a direct result of the recently failed Bay of Pigs invasion the U.S. conducted in an attempt to overthrow the socialist government.
The Cuban Missile Crisis is a good example of the Bargaining Theory of War gone right. War was avoided and a peaceful deal was agreed upon by both sides. However, a deal like this is not always reached and war does occasionally break out. This can be due to the fact that an agreement could not be reached by opposing states or because one state has a problem committing to the treaty that was drafted. The Bargaining Theory can still be seen in full effect in today's society, namely in recent scenario's like the Iran Deal, and demonstrates a useful way to understand how states approach avoiding wars and attempt to make deals.
I think the Cuban Missile Crisis is a great example of the bargaining theory of war, and I also love President Kennedy. You say there are also situation when the bargaining theory of war didn't work, what could be one of those times? I'm thinking maybe World War I, when negotiation between Germany and other countries kinda didn't work out. Do you agree or do you think it was another reason?
ReplyDeleteI think that is a great example of bargaining theory gone wrong. Neither side could reach a middle ground with one another and when tensions grew too fighting broke out and war started. One thing to note, however, is that there was arguably a lot less at stake when W.W.1 began than during the Cuban Missile Crisis. There was a much higher incentive to avoid fighting the Soviet Union in the 1960's than ever before.
DeleteAlong with Kathryn, I would like to know when the bargaining theory of war doesn’t work. Particularly, from a Realist approach, how can we be certain that Iran’s motives to decrease nuclear weapons are benign? As recently as today, Iran has “tested a new guided long-range ballistic missle” with Iranian defense minister Hossein Dehghan stating “‘We don’t seek permission from anyone to strengthen our defense and missile capabilities,”’ (The New York Times). How can we be certain that bargaining theory works in a situation where Iran is trying to bolster its own security against the perceived threat of a demilitarized nuclear program?
ReplyDeletelink for recent article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/12/world/middleeast/iran-tests-long-range-missile-possibly-violating-nuclear-accord.html?_r=0
DeleteIs it just me, or does it seem as though the preference for upholding the Bargaining Theory of War is more dominant nowadays? Back in the early and mid-1900s, many political leaders wanted to provoke war, or at least be antagonistic. Even an American presidents Eisenhower (of course) and Kennedy practiced brinkmanship, the opposite of Bargaining Theory of War. However, as you put it, the Bargaining Theory of War is still alive and well in the Iran Deal, and hopefully in future deals too.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I double-posted for some reason.
DeleteI completely agree with you Elaine. As I stated in my response to Kathryn, there is a lot more at stake between countries now than there was 100 years ago. When states did not have to worry about nuclear warfare and mutually assured destruction the Bargaining Theory was much less prominent and countries were much more willing to go to war and try to expand their global leadership.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree, the Cuban Missile Crisis is a good example of the Bargaining Theory. You mentioned that sometimes this does not work out though because agreements can not be reached by opposing states, even though it is in their best interest not to go to war. What could be some of the factors that lead the bargaining theory to fail?
ReplyDeleteI think that there are a couple factors that lead bargaining theory to fail. First off, I think it depends on the relative power between two countries. If one has substantially more power than another, I think that country may decide to go to war on the assumption that they're much stronger than the other state. In the case of the Cuban missile crisis, the Soviet Union and the U.S. had pretty similar power and one was not substantially stronger than the other so bargaining theory worked. Second, I think bargaining theory can fail if two countries have very different ideologies. For example the U.S. and Iraq were very different (obviously 9/11 contributed) so they went to war.
Delete