Threat-based alliance logic holds only for non-institutionalized arrangements.

Evidence

No evidence has been presented that challenges the core neorealist understanding of ad hoc alliances that lose their threats. In such circumstances, the basic neorealist expectation about alliance erosion remains intact. The de facto U.S. alliance with the People’s Republic of China against the Soviets that emerged in the late 1970s evaporated as Chinese perceptions of the threat posed by the Soviets eased in the early 1980s. Neorealist (and ultimately realist) insights about the effect of increased threat perceptions on alliance cohesion and durability also remain intact. Clearly, in the context of a high or growing threat environment, realist expectations will prevail. The argument presented here suggests that only in the context of an institutionalized alliance and a declining threat environment will these expectations not apply. — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 157

Categorization

• XREF: The Sino-American anti-Soviet alliance evaporating once the Soviet threat faded is a clean contrast case to NATO - useful for the reader’s persistence research. — connects to: No realist theory explains why states perceive some powers but not others as threats — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 61; Alliances may persist through habit and precaution after threats recede — Robert B. McCalla, NATO’s persistence after the cold war, 61; Organizational form determines successor-party survival only under left-wing competitive threat. — John T. Ishiyama, Party Organization and the Political…, 86 (+1 more)

Related

• The US-China anti-Soviet alliance dissolved as Soviet threat perception eased (similarity 0.88)
• Alliance theory predicts collapse once threats vanish. (similarity 0.87)
• Alliance cohesion rises and falls with the external threat it balances (similarity 0.86)
• Theoretical frameworks beyond realism are needed to explain NATO’s survival. (similarity 0.86)
• All realists hold that external threats are necessary for alliances to form and persist (similarity 0.86)
• Neorealist theories predict alliances collapse once their external threat fades. (similarity 0.86)
• Explaining alliance persistence requires nonrealist unit-level theory. (similarity 0.86)
• Deeply institutionalized alliances outlast ad hoc ones against realist expectations (similarity 0.86)
• Realism explains alliance behavior under threat but fails without one. (similarity 0.85)
• NATO stayed cohesive despite neorealist predictions of its collapse (similarity 0.85)
• Alliance cohesion theories predict NATO should have dissolved after the Soviet threat vanished (similarity 0.84)
• Alliance theory has neglected why alliances persist and what happens when they become obsolete (similarity 0.84)
• NATO survived the cold war’s end due to institutionalization, not merely threats (similarity 0.84)
• NATO’s institutionalization beyond mutual defense explains its persistence after its founding threat vanished. (similarity 0.84)
• Costly alliances should dissolve when the threat justifying their costs disappears. (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Organizational form determines successor-party survival only under left-wing competitive threat. #expands (0.72) — John T. Ishiyama, Party Organization and the Political…, 86