What Does It Take to Deter? Regional Power Nuclear Postures and International Conflict
نویسنده
چکیده
Existing nuclear deterrence scholarship evinces a pervasive ‘‘existential bias,’’ assuming that once a state merely possesses nuclear weapons, it should be able to deter armed conflict. The empirical literature expresses this bias by simply dichotomously coding a state based on whether it has nuclear weapons, thereby treating all nuclear states as equivalent. Thus, whether nuclear weapons deter conflict, and how much is required to do so, is unclear. This article shifts the unit of analysis away from nuclear weapons to postures, hypothesizing that different nuclear postures are distinct and generate differential deterrent power, particularly amongst the nonsuperpower states which comprise the lion’s share of nuclear powers. I find that an asymmetric escalation nuclear posture uniquely deters conflict initiation and escalation. Not only do small arsenals have little deterrence success, but I find that even assured retaliation postures fail to deter intense conventional conflict. This suggests that the deterrence dividend is distributed unequally across nuclear powers, and that states may need to do more than simply acquire nuclear weapons to successfully deter conventional attacks.
منابع مشابه
Regional and International Cooperation to Reduce Nagorno – Karabakh Conflict
Almost two decades since conflict broke out between Republic of Azerbaijan and Armenia, two northern neighbors of Iran, in Nagorno – Karabakh region. Although military conflict in this region has minimized with the existing ceasefire, and reaching a sustainable agreement is likely to be happened by the two parties. Close regional and international cooperation seems necessary more than ever in o...
متن کاملNuclear Strategies of Emerging Nuclear Powers: North Korea and Iran
What if nuclear aspirants get the bomb? How likely are they to use it? Which nuclear strategies might emerging nuclear powers adopt? These may seem like academic questions, but they are loaded with strategic significance. Different nuclear strategies have historically been associated with distinct types of risk. Some nuclear strategies are more likely to deter U.S. freedom of action; some more ...
متن کاملThe Logic of Latent Nuclear Deterrence
Nuclear deterrence is central to international relations theory and practice. Most people assume that countries must possess nuclear weapons in order to reap deterrence benefits from their nuclear programs. This article shows, however, that latent nuclear powers – nonnuclear states that possess the capacity to make weapons – can deter aggression, despite their lack of assembled warheads. Latent...
متن کاملNuclear Brinkmanship, Limited War, and Military Power*
An open question in nuclear deterrence theory is whether and how the balance of military power affects the dynamics of escalation. The balance of military strength plays virtually no role in standard accounts of brinkmanship. But this largely by assumption and seems incompatible with an apparent trade-off between power and risk that decision makers faced in some actual crises. This paper incorp...
متن کاملThe Legal Strength of International Health Instruments - What It Brings to Global Health Governance?
Public health instruments have been under constant development and renewal for decades. International legal instruments, with their binding character and strength, have a special place in this development. The start of the 21st century saw, in particular, the birth of the first World Health Organization (WHO)-era health treaties – the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) and i...
متن کامل