Ulrich Kühn
{
"authors": [
"Ulrich Kühn"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [
"U.S. Nuclear Policy"
],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States"
],
"topics": [
"Security",
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}Source: Getty
Deterrence and Its Discontents
Why the United States does not currently have a long-term strategy for dealing with its most fundamental foreign policy challenges and why it needs one.
Source: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Abstract
What might Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, have found, had he lived long enough to study the 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review and its drafters? Anxiety about failure and death, fear of impotence, and an obsession with deterrence that obscures the ultimate question: “What is it that the United States wants in this world?” In this essay, the author uses psychoanalytic metaphors to explain why the United States does not currently have a long-term strategy for dealing with its most fundamental foreign policy challenges – and why it needs one, particularly as regards the global nuclear dilemma.
Imagine for a second that Sigmund Freud were to analyze the 2018 US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). He would quickly encounter strong feelings of anxiety and unhappiness that the drafters of the NPR seem to express when writing about nuclear deterrence. Anxiety about failure, and ultimately death, is omnipresent in the document and is met by prescriptions for more nuclear capabilities. Fear of impotence – in the form of unhappiness with the restraints that nuclear deterrence puts on the natural instinct of aggression – is answered in the NPR by the lowering of the threshold to nuclear use. But ultimately, when digging deeper into the document, Freud would come across an obsession with deterrence, one that saves and prevents the “American patient” from asking the ultimate question: “What is it that I want in this world?”
This article was originally published in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.
About the Author
Former Nonresident Scholar, Nuclear Policy Program
Ulrich Kühn was a nonresident scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the head of the arms control and emerging technologies program at the Institute for Peace Research and Security Policy at the University of Hamburg.
- Why Arms Control Is (Almost) DeadCommentary
- Preventing Escalation in the Baltics: A NATO PlaybookReport
Ulrich Kühn
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
- Belarus Wants More From the West Than a ‘Massive Deal’ on PotashCommentary
Trump has promised Belarus a massive potash deal. But Minsk is seeking something greater: restored Western transit and greater room for maneuver from Russia.
Balázs Jarábik
- Will the Far Right Change Europe’s Russia Policy?Commentary
The European far right might fail to steer EU policy in the direction Russia wants, but they will create enough chaos inside Europe to benefit the Kremlin.
Dimitar Bechev
- Have U.S.-Belarusian Negotiations Stalled?Commentary
Minsk clearly expected the dialogue with Washington to yield more results, in particular the lifting of EU sanctions and permission to export potash.
Artyom Shraibman
- As It Turns 25, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Reflects the New World OrderCommentary
With the growth in points of friction between the great powers, organizations like the SCO will continue to play a role in the strategic adaptation of the smaller powers caught between them.
Temur Umarov
- Russia Is Approaching a Political CrossroadsCommentary
Two divergent trends—Putin’s hardline vision of how to prosecute the war in Ukraine, and a growing desire for change in Russia—could tear the regime apart.
Tatiana Stanovaya