Can the Threat of War Keep the Peace

Start talking

Start talking: first response

Two neighbours each announce a defensive measure; both then feel less safe. How is that possible?

Take it further

What information could change either interpretation?

Clip A

The Cold War involved many devastating conflicts. Here, “staying cold” refers specifically to avoiding direct war between the United States and Soviet Union. Listen for several proposed explanations rather than assuming that one factor settled the outcome.

Watch for: How do deterrence, communication and restraint contribute different explanations?

Academic Vocabulary

deterrence

Discouraging an action by making its expected costs seem unacceptable.

a deterrence strategy

The statement aimed to deter an attack, but its effect depended on how the other side interpreted it.

credibility

The extent to which a claim or commitment is believed.

the credibility of a commitment

Resources alone did not settle the credibility of the commitment.

mutual vulnerability

A condition in which each side remains exposed to serious harm from the other.

recognise mutual vulnerability

Recognising mutual vulnerability can encourage caution without removing the risk of mistakes.

arms control

Agreements intended to limit or regulate weapons and related activities.

an arms-control agreement

An arms-control agreement can also improve information about the other side’s capabilities.

Original source

Why Did the Cold War Stay Cold? · CFR Education · 00:43–06:28 · Source and credit

Clip A quiz: 6 questions

Choose one answer for each question, then read the feedback.

1. How can an alliance contribute to deterrence in the account?

An attacker may expect to face several countries.Membership removes every possibility of miscalculation.Allied countries become incapable of making choices.

2. What gives a deterrent commitment credibility?

The strength of the wording alone.Belief that a country is both able and willing to respond.Keeping every commitment completely unknown.

3. What is the basic deterrent logic described?

The first attack guarantees freedom from retaliation.Having more weapons makes communication unnecessary.An attack could bring unacceptable retaliation on the attacker.

4. What benefit of arms control goes beyond numerical limits?

Greater transparency can reduce miscalculation.It ensures both governments share identical political aims.It turns every agreement into automatic trust.

5. Why does regular communication matter in the account?

It guarantees that all statements are truthful.It helps clarify events before they provoke an overreaction.It replaces every other explanation of restraint.

6. What does the discussion of proxy conflicts prevent us from concluding?

That either superpower had allies.That choices about escalation mattered.That the Cold War was peaceful for everyone.

Grammar in a minute: Qualified explanations of past outcomes

May/might have + past participle offers a possible past explanation. Must have makes a stronger inference and should be reserved for stronger evidence.

You say: Give two possible contributions to an avoided crisis without claiming certainty.

One possible response

Deterrence may have encouraged caution, while communication might have prevented an ambiguous incident from escalating.

Useful English

Useful English: speak and compare

Say your response before opening a model.

That is one plausible explanation, alongside…

Keep multiple causes in view.

You say: Respond to the claim that weapons alone explain the absence of direct war.

One possible response

That is one plausible explanation, alongside diplomacy, restraint and the way leaders interpreted particular events.

We cannot observe the counterfactual in which…

Identify a limit of historical causal claims.

You say: Explain why one peaceful outcome cannot prove one deterrent policy worked.

One possible response

We cannot observe the counterfactual in which the same leaders faced the same crisis without that policy.

Critical Thinking: 3 questions

Choose one question, then follow up, challenge and revise. Use the others for another angle.

Does the absence of war prove that a threat prevented it?
Help me start
Consider other explanations and the outcome we cannot observe.
One possible response
It is consistent with successful deterrence, but it is not proof by itself. The other side may never have intended to attack, or diplomacy may have resolved the dispute. A stronger account would examine decisions, expectations and plausible alternatives rather than the outcome alone.
Take it further: What evidence could distinguish deterrence from lack of aggressive intent?
C2 challenge
Defend a causal claim while explicitly limiting its certainty.
Can a measure intended to increase security make an opponent feel less secure?
Help me start
Separate intention from interpretation.
One possible response
Yes. A defensive explanation does not guarantee that the other side accepts it. They may see increased capability as preparation for attack and respond in kind. Communication and observable limits could reduce that uncertainty, although neither would remove every conflicting interest.
Take it further: What would count as credible reassurance rather than a reassuring phrase?
C2 challenge
Explain the security dilemma without assuming either side is irrational.
Should success be measured only by avoiding direct war between the strongest states?
Help me start
Change the unit of analysis: leaders, allies, civilians or the international system.
One possible response
No. That measure captures an important outcome but excludes harm in proxy conflicts and the continuing risk of catastrophe. I would assess both direct-war avoidance and effects on other populations. A strategy can look stable from one perspective while imposing severe costs elsewhere.
Take it further: Can you compare those outcomes without treating them as interchangeable?
C2 challenge
Offer a multidimensional judgement with a clear reason for your priorities.

Clip B

The Cuban Missile Crisis provides a concrete case of threats, uncertain signals and negotiation. Focus on how decisions were interpreted. A short animation compresses a complex historical record, so use it to examine mechanisms rather than memorise every diplomatic detail.

Watch for: Where did misinterpretation threaten to overwhelm leaders’ attempts to control the crisis?

Academic Vocabulary

escalation

An increase in the intensity or scope of a conflict.

prevent escalation

A local incident could trigger escalation beyond what either government intended.

misperception

An inaccurate interpretation of a situation or another actor’s intentions.

a dangerous misperception

The same signal was understood differently by the two sides, creating a dangerous misperception.

backchannel

A less public route for communication or negotiation.

use a diplomatic backchannel

A diplomatic backchannel allowed the parties to discuss concessions away from public pressure.

reciprocal concession

A step one party takes as part of an exchange of compromises.

negotiate reciprocal concessions

The mediators sought reciprocal concessions that each side could defend at home.

Original source

The history of the Cuban Missile Crisis , Matthew A. Jordan · TED-Ed · 00:06–04:35 · Source and credit

Clip B quiz: 6 questions

Choose one answer for each question, then read the feedback.

1. What helps explain Cuba’s request for Soviet support?

A completed peace settlement with the United States.Fear following a failed attempt to overthrow its government.The absence of any concern about external attack.

2. How did Kennedy’s initial response differ from some advisers’ recommendation?

He immediately accepted every proposed military action.He treated the discovery as having no political significance.He chose a naval interception policy rather than an immediate attack.

3. What does the dispute over the word “quarantine” illustrate?

One side’s label did not settle how the other interpreted the act.Changing a label automatically prevents escalation.Both sides immediately agreed about the action’s meaning.

4. What made the submarine incident especially dangerous in the account?

The crew had complete, current information from both governments.The crew lacked clear communication and misread the situation.The incident occurred after every issue had been settled.

5. What continued while military danger remained high?

Automatic agreement on every public demand.A complete end to communication between governments.Negotiation through a less public diplomatic channel.

6. What characterises the settlement described?

Reciprocal steps rather than one side simply getting everything.Only a new public threat with no negotiated terms.The permanent disappearance of all international conflict.

Grammar in a minute: Past counterfactual inversion

Had + subject + past participle introduces an alternative past without if. A result with might have leaves uncertainty about what would have followed.

You say: Offer a cautious counterfactual about the crisis.

One possible response

Had the signal been understood as intended, the local commanders might have assessed the danger differently.

Useful English

Useful English: speak and compare

Say your response before opening a model.

The same action could be read as… or as…

Compare rival interpretations.

You say: A fictional state announces an emergency exercise near a disputed border. Explain the ambiguity.

One possible response

The same action could be read as reassurance to its own public or as preparation for escalation by its neighbour.

An off-ramp would need to let both sides…

Design a route out of a dispute.

You say: Suggest what a credible compromise should provide in a fictional crisis.

One possible response

An off-ramp would need to let both sides reduce the immediate danger while showing that their core concerns had been heard.

Critical Thinking: 3 questions

Choose one question, then follow up, challenge and revise. Use the others for another angle.

Would public negotiation or a private channel be more useful during a crisis?
Help me start
Compare accountability, flexibility and the cost of appearing to retreat.
One possible response
A private channel may make exploration easier when public concessions are politically costly. However, secrecy can weaken accountability or exclude affected parties. I would distinguish confidential exploration from commitments that require wider legitimacy, rather than treating either public or private diplomacy as always superior.
Take it further: Who must be included before an agreement becomes legitimate?
C2 challenge
Defend confidentiality while specifying a limit that prevents it becoming unaccountable.
What does a near miss tell us about a system that ultimately avoided disaster?
Help me start
Separate the final outcome from the reliability of the process.
One possible response
It shows that the outcome was successful in a narrow sense, but the process may have been fragile. We should ask whether safety depended on robust communication or on an exceptional individual decision. Surviving one crisis does not establish that the same system is reliably safe.
Take it further: What evidence would make the system look more robust?
C2 challenge
Distinguish outcome evaluation from process evaluation without dismissing either.
How can a compromise be presented without implying that every earlier claim was false?
Help me start
Separate a continuing objective from the means chosen to pursue it.
One possible response
A leader could explain that the objective remains security while circumstances make reciprocal restraint a better means. That is more defensible than pretending no concession occurred. Whether the explanation is credible depends on the terms and evidence, not simply on skilful wording.
Take it further: What would an opponent reasonably challenge in that explanation?
C2 challenge
State a concession candidly and defend it without a triumphalist narrative.

Mastery

Mastery: 6 questions

Original cases. Choose, then explain one answer aloud.

1. Two fictional states avoid war after a threat and secret talks. What can the outcome alone establish?

The threat alone necessarily caused peace.The private talks must have had no effect.War was avoided; the contribution of each factor remains uncertain.

2. A defensive exercise is interpreted as preparation for attack. Which distinction matters most?

Intended meaning versus the opponent’s interpretation.Public wording versus the complete absence of any action.A misunderstanding versus something that can never affect decisions.

3. A state can respond but its commitment is not believed. What part of deterrence is uncertain?

Whether physical capability exists.Credibility of willingness to respond.Whether communication is logically impossible.

4. A crisis ends safely because one official questions an ambiguous signal. What should be examined next?

Whether all future signals will be interpreted correctly.Whether the official’s choice proves diplomacy unnecessary.Whether the process can handle similar ambiguity reliably.

5. An agreement reduces weapons uncertainty but political rivalry continues. Has it necessarily failed?

No; its specific aim may be to reduce risk within rivalry.Yes; any useful agreement must create identical political goals.No; agreements automatically eliminate all future conflict.

6. A strategy avoids direct war but intensifies conflict elsewhere. How should it be assessed?

Count only the interests of the strongest states.Consider both the avoided war and the displaced harm.Treat every kind of conflict as identical in scale and cause.

Grammar in a minute: Concessive past conditions

Even if + past perfect concedes a hypothetical past condition. A modal perfect in the result expresses what would or might still have followed.

You say: Concede a benign intention while explaining a remaining risk.

One possible response

Even if the announcement had been intended as reassurance, its timing might have increased the other side’s uncertainty.

A route out of the crisis

Integrated spoken task: decide and revise

Two fictional neighbouring states have suspended border talks after an ambiguous incident. No attack is confirmed. A joint mediator offers a direct communication channel, a temporary pause in nearby exercises and a shared factual investigation.

Negotiate an initial package of reciprocal steps and explain it to both publics.

Open only your own role. Share its information by speaking.

State A envoy

You need credible reassurance and a visible route to de-escalation.

Your government can accept a temporary pause if the other side makes a comparable commitment.

State B envoy

You need an accurate account and protection against appearing to accept blame without evidence.

Your officials suspect an equipment error but have not established its cause.

State an initial decision and its strongest reason.
Hear the other role, ask a challenging question and answer an objection.
Receive the new information, then explain a revised or deliberately retained decision.

New information: revise your decision

The shared investigation finds the reported incident may have been a sensor fault; a conclusive result will take another day.

Revise the public statement and immediate commitments while uncertainty remains.

A strong response

Separate deterrent claims, reassurance and the communication mechanism.
Represent each side’s possible interpretation fairly.
Revise the response to uncertain evidence without claiming certainty.

I would initially support reciprocal pauses and a direct channel, paired with an investigation that does not presume blame. The new information strengthens the case for restraint, but it does not yet establish what happened. Both sides could announce that they are reducing the risk of misinterpretation while the inquiry continues. A comparable commitment gives each government a reason to cooperate without treating the other’s intentions as proven. We should judge success by whether the process clarifies events and reduces danger, not by whether one side can claim a public victory.

Spoken exit

Your spoken exit

Explain why “The crisis ended peacefully” is an incomplete evaluation.

One possible response

It reports an outcome but does not identify its cause or the reliability of the process. We also need to consider near misses and harm outside the immediate confrontation.

Your takeaway

One-minute takeaway

Choose one answer. Then explain your choice in one sentence aloud.

Can the Threat of War Keep the Peace?

Start talking

Clip A

Useful English

Clip B

Useful English

Mastery

A route out of the crisis

Spoken exit

Your takeaway

Lesson aims

Practice audio