Russian crisis management from Able Archer 1983 to Andøya 1995: Successful avoidance of nuclear escalation or ‘rolling the nuclear dice’?
Theory on successful crisis management is applied to try to shed light on two important and relatively under-examined nuclear crises and their further implications for Russian nuclear crisis management. By conducting a historical explorative type of thesis, I apply Stephen J. Cimbala’s four attribut...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Master Thesis |
Language: | Norwegian Bokmål |
Published: |
2021
|
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10852/88581 http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-91207 |
id |
ftoslouniv:oai:www.duo.uio.no:10852/88581 |
---|---|
record_format |
openpolar |
spelling |
ftoslouniv:oai:www.duo.uio.no:10852/88581 2023-05-15T13:25:35+02:00 Russian crisis management from Able Archer 1983 to Andøya 1995: Successful avoidance of nuclear escalation or ‘rolling the nuclear dice’? Hatteland, Amund Sandnes 2021 http://hdl.handle.net/10852/88581 http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-91207 nob nob http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-91207 Hatteland, Amund Sandnes. Russian crisis management from Able Archer 1983 to Andøya 1995: Successful avoidance of nuclear escalation or ‘rolling the nuclear dice’?. Master thesis, University of Oslo, 2021 http://hdl.handle.net/10852/88581 URN:NBN:no-91207 Fulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/88581/1/Master-s-thesis--Russian-successful-NCM--2021.pdf nuclear crisis management Able Archer 83 crisis Andøya rocket crisis Soviet Union Russia Master thesis Masteroppgave 2021 ftoslouniv 2021-09-29T22:31:55Z Theory on successful crisis management is applied to try to shed light on two important and relatively under-examined nuclear crises and their further implications for Russian nuclear crisis management. By conducting a historical explorative type of thesis, I apply Stephen J. Cimbala’s four attributes of successful crisis management to explain Russian success at managing the 1983 Able Archer crisis and the 1995 Andøya rocket crisis. The cases are chosen based on their reputation as notable incidents of possible near use of nuclear weapons with huge potential ramifications for at least Norway and Europe. The attributes include “Communication transparency”, “Reducing time pressure on policymakers and commanders”, “Ability to offer safety to the adversary”, and “Maintaining accurate perceptions of the adversary's intentions and military capabilities.” The results of the analysis suggest that Russia and the Soviet Union managed the two crises with a different level of success. Russia’s crisis management during the Andøya rocket crisis appears most successful, although crisis specific differences might explain at least some differences. Communication transparency appears as a problem in both crises because of poor signaling. Master Thesis Andøya Universitet i Oslo: Digitale utgivelser ved UiO (DUO) Andøya ENVELOPE(13.982,13.982,68.185,68.185) Archer ENVELOPE(162.867,162.867,-76.850,-76.850) Norway |
institution |
Open Polar |
collection |
Universitet i Oslo: Digitale utgivelser ved UiO (DUO) |
op_collection_id |
ftoslouniv |
language |
Norwegian Bokmål |
topic |
nuclear crisis management Able Archer 83 crisis Andøya rocket crisis Soviet Union Russia |
spellingShingle |
nuclear crisis management Able Archer 83 crisis Andøya rocket crisis Soviet Union Russia Hatteland, Amund Sandnes Russian crisis management from Able Archer 1983 to Andøya 1995: Successful avoidance of nuclear escalation or ‘rolling the nuclear dice’? |
topic_facet |
nuclear crisis management Able Archer 83 crisis Andøya rocket crisis Soviet Union Russia |
description |
Theory on successful crisis management is applied to try to shed light on two important and relatively under-examined nuclear crises and their further implications for Russian nuclear crisis management. By conducting a historical explorative type of thesis, I apply Stephen J. Cimbala’s four attributes of successful crisis management to explain Russian success at managing the 1983 Able Archer crisis and the 1995 Andøya rocket crisis. The cases are chosen based on their reputation as notable incidents of possible near use of nuclear weapons with huge potential ramifications for at least Norway and Europe. The attributes include “Communication transparency”, “Reducing time pressure on policymakers and commanders”, “Ability to offer safety to the adversary”, and “Maintaining accurate perceptions of the adversary's intentions and military capabilities.” The results of the analysis suggest that Russia and the Soviet Union managed the two crises with a different level of success. Russia’s crisis management during the Andøya rocket crisis appears most successful, although crisis specific differences might explain at least some differences. Communication transparency appears as a problem in both crises because of poor signaling. |
format |
Master Thesis |
author |
Hatteland, Amund Sandnes |
author_facet |
Hatteland, Amund Sandnes |
author_sort |
Hatteland, Amund Sandnes |
title |
Russian crisis management from Able Archer 1983 to Andøya 1995: Successful avoidance of nuclear escalation or ‘rolling the nuclear dice’? |
title_short |
Russian crisis management from Able Archer 1983 to Andøya 1995: Successful avoidance of nuclear escalation or ‘rolling the nuclear dice’? |
title_full |
Russian crisis management from Able Archer 1983 to Andøya 1995: Successful avoidance of nuclear escalation or ‘rolling the nuclear dice’? |
title_fullStr |
Russian crisis management from Able Archer 1983 to Andøya 1995: Successful avoidance of nuclear escalation or ‘rolling the nuclear dice’? |
title_full_unstemmed |
Russian crisis management from Able Archer 1983 to Andøya 1995: Successful avoidance of nuclear escalation or ‘rolling the nuclear dice’? |
title_sort |
russian crisis management from able archer 1983 to andøya 1995: successful avoidance of nuclear escalation or ‘rolling the nuclear dice’? |
publishDate |
2021 |
url |
http://hdl.handle.net/10852/88581 http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-91207 |
long_lat |
ENVELOPE(13.982,13.982,68.185,68.185) ENVELOPE(162.867,162.867,-76.850,-76.850) |
geographic |
Andøya Archer Norway |
geographic_facet |
Andøya Archer Norway |
genre |
Andøya |
genre_facet |
Andøya |
op_relation |
http://urn.nb.no/URN:NBN:no-91207 Hatteland, Amund Sandnes. Russian crisis management from Able Archer 1983 to Andøya 1995: Successful avoidance of nuclear escalation or ‘rolling the nuclear dice’?. Master thesis, University of Oslo, 2021 http://hdl.handle.net/10852/88581 URN:NBN:no-91207 Fulltext https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/88581/1/Master-s-thesis--Russian-successful-NCM--2021.pdf |
_version_ |
1766386275205513216 |