US nuclear weapons and non-proliferation
Is there a link
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3917668 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Matthew Kroenig (0000-0002-4834-0472, Georgetown University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 53 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 166-179 |
| Publication date | 2016-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Peace Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0022-3433 • E-ISSN: 1460-3578 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/0022343315626770 |
| OpenAlex | W2325921463 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 9 |
| References cited | 28 |
According to a widespread conventional wisdom, there is a link between US nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation and, therefore, in order to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to other states, the US government must first make changes to its own nuclear arsenal. This article challenges the notion that US nuclear posture has a significant bearing on the proliferation and non-proliferation behavior of other states. Contrary to the received wisdom in policy circles, this article maintains that state decisions on nuclear non-proliferation issues are driven by a range of other security, economic, and political factors and, once these considerations are taken into account, there is little if any remaining variance to be explained by US nuclear posture. Using a dataset on US nuclear arsenal size from 1945 to 2011, this article examines the relationship between the size of the US nuclear arsenal and a variety of nuclear non-proliferation outcomes. It finds that there is no evidence of a relationship between the size of the US arsenal and: the exploration, pursuit, or acquisition of nuclear weapons by other states; the provision of sensitive nuclear assistance to non-nuclear weapon states; and voting on non-proliferation issues in the United Nations Security Council. The results are robust to alternate conceptualizations and measurements of US nuclear weapons and in various subsamples of data. This article breaks new ground on an empirical research agenda on how the nuclear policies and postures of the major nuclear powers affect the spread of nuclear weapons and has important implications for nuclear security policy
Arms control · Business · Computer security · Economics · Government (linguistics) · International trade · Law and economics · National security · Nuclear ethics · Nuclear material · Nuclear physics · Nuclear proliferation · Nuclear weapon · Physics · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Computer Science · Economic Sanctions and International Relations · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Nuclear Issues and Defense
Alliance and Public Preference for Nuclear Forbearance
Evaluating the Prague Agenda
Warheads of Energy
Not by NPT alone
Taiwan–US nonproliferation cooperation
Is the NPT unraveling? Evidence from text analysis of review conference statements
Revisiting the puzzle of endogenous nuclear proliferation
Social Scientific Analysis of Nuclear Weapons
Nukes with Numbers
Nonproliferation Norms
The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation
Nuclear Logics
Eugene
Spreading Temptation
Ringing in Proliferation
Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation
Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb
Proliferation Rings
The Political Economy of Nuclear Restraint
Civilian Nuclear Cooperation and the Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons
Taking Time Seriously
The Correlates of Nuclear Proliferation
Targeting Nuclear Programs in War and Peace
Taking a Walk on the Supply Side
The Sources of Threat Credibility in Extended Deterrence
Determinants of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
Nuclear Posture, Nonproliferation Policy, and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons
Importing the Bomb
Managing Nuclear Proliferation
Nuclear Myths and the Causes of Nuclear Proliferation
Force or Friendship? Explaining Great Power Nonproliferation Policy
Exporting the Bomb
| Unique citing works | 9 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,9 |
| Citation span | 2016 - 2023 (8) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 9 |