44 Waltz, ‘The spread of nuclear weapons: more may be better’, Adelphi Papers, no. 171
(London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981). Also see Scott D. Sagan and
Kenneth N. Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed(New York: WW
Norton, 2002).
45 United States Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, (Washington,
DC: US GPO, 30 September 2001) p. 14.
46 Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review, p. 6.
47 Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review, p. 13.
48 Quoted in Philip Shenon and Eric Schmitt, ‘At U.S. nerve center, daily talks on the worst
fears’,New York Times, 27 December 2002, p. A12.
49 Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review, p. 6.
50 Thomas C. Schelling, Arms and Influence(New Haven, CT: Yale, 1966) p. 3.
51 I have not explored humiliation and anger, which may also come into play in threat
situations. See, for instance, Paul Saurette, ‘You dissin me? Humiliation and post 9/11
global politics’, Review of International Studies, 32 (2006) pp. 495–522; Khaled Fattah and
K.M. Fierke, ‘A clash of emotions: the politics of humiliation and political violence in
the Middle East,’ European Journal of International Relations, 15, 1, (2009) pp. 67–93.
52 Tom Pyszczynski, Sheldon Solomon, and Jeff Greenberg, In the Wake of 9/11: The
Psychology of Terror(Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2002) p. 103.
53 Irving Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes(Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1982), p. 9. A thoughtful review, critique, and amendment of
groupthink research is Ramon J. Aldag and Sally Riggs Fuller, ‘Beyond fiasco: a
reappraisal of the groupthink phenomenon and a new model of group decision processes’,
Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 113, No. 2 (May 1993), pp. 533–52. See also Paul ‘t Hart, Eric
K. Stern, and Bengt Sundelius, eds, Beyond Groupthink: Political Group Dynamics and
Foreign Policy-making(Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1997).
54 Pyszczynski, Solomon, and Greenberg, In the Wake of 9/11, p. 101. Diane M. Mackie,
Elliot R. Smith and Devin G. Ray, ‘Intergroup emotions and intergroup relations,’ Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 2 (2008) pp. 1–15.
55 Pyszczynski, Solomon, and Greenberg, In the Wake of 9/11, pp. 45–52.
56 Mackie, Smith and Ray, ‘Intergroup emotions and intergroup relations,’ p. 8.
57 Booth and Wheeler, The Security Dilemma, pp. 4–5.
58 Rorty, ‘Human rights, rationality, and sentimentality’.
59 Neta C. Crawford, Argument and Change in World Politics: Ethics, Decolonization and
Humanitarian Intervention(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002).
60 Lynn Hunt, Inventing Human Rights(New York: WW Norton, 2007).
61 On trust in international relations theory, see Booth and Wheeler, The Security Dilemma.
On GRIT, see Charles E. Osgood, An Alternative to War or Surrender(Urbana: University
of Illinois, 1962); Joshua S. Goldstein and John R. Freeman, Three Way Street:Strategic
Reciprocity in World Politics(Chicago: University of Chicago, 1990); Alan R. Collins,
‘GRIT, Gorbachev and the end of the Cold War,’ Review of International Studies, 24, 2,
(1998) p. 201–19.
62 On institutionalizing trust, see Neta C. Crawford, ‘A security regime among democracies:
cooperation among Iroquois nations’, International Organization,vol. 48, no. 3 (Summer
1994) pp. 345–85; Michael Barnett and Emmanuel Adler, eds, Security Communities
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).
63 Richard Rorty, ‘Human rights, rationality, and sentimentality’, in Stephen Shute and
Susan Hurley, eds, On Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 1993(New York:
Basic Books, 1993) pp. 111–34: 115.
64 Waltz, Man, the State and War, p. 40.
65 See Steven Rose, Lifelines. Biology, Freedom, Determinism (London: Allen Lane, 1997).
66 Waltz, Theory of International Politics, p. 128.
67 Many scholars of international relations havestudied the relation of human psychology
to foreign policy decision-making. Their work is too numerous to cite here, but these
Rethinking ‘man’ 175