Competing Visions of Grand Strategy and the Consequences for Nuclear Proliferation

About

Since the end of the Cold War, there has been a vigorous public and academic debate on which grand strategy the United States should pursue. It has also narrowed to essentially three positions. First, deep engagement proponents define U.S. interests broadly and advocate an expansive role for the U.S. military in the world. Second, restraint proponents define U.S. interests narrowly and advocate a moderately reduced U.S. military role. Third, neo-isolationists also define U.S. interests narrowly but advocate a drastically reduced U.S. military role.

While each group makes strong claims, a careful reading shows that oftentimes there is less disagreement than the rhetoric implies, the logic remains under-specified, and there is limited evidence to support specific positions. The speakers advance the debate in two ways. First, they disentangle the policy prescriptions and underlying logic to show where disagreement exists, focusing on the relationship between policy levers and nuclear proliferation. Second, they examine what evidence there is to support the respective positions and suggest future research.

Please join us! Coffee and tea provided. Everyone is welcome, but admittance will be on a first come–first served basis.