Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

The Law of Small Numbers

Deterrence and National Missile Defense

Bibliographic Data

ID6283585
AuthorsJames H Lebovic (Department of Political Science George Washington University, corresponding author)
Year2002
Volume46
Issue4
Pages455-483
Publication date2002-08-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Conflict Resolution (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0022-0027 • E-ISSN: 1552-8766
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0022002702046004001
OpenAlexW2029009753
LanguageEN
Citations received6
References cited33

Armed with a new threat and promising technology, advocates of national missile defense (NMD) have framed the debate by presenting NMD as a break from traditional deterrence principles. The assumption that the United States faces new adversaries that cannot be deterred by U.S. offensive options and whether adversaries can and will use nuclear weapons to coerce the United States, given its inclination and ability to retaliate, are assessed. The effectiveness of NMD against various offensive threats is simulated. Conclusions indicate that NMD advocates have not made their case that cold war-era deterrence principles are ill suited to U.S. relations with fledgling nuclear states and that the expected value of a missile defense of any type and scale is low because it is unlikely to enhance global security above levels offered by retaliatory deterrence

Business · Cold war · Computer security · Deterrence (psychology · Deterrence theory · Economics · International trade · Law and economics · Missile · Missile Defense · National security · Nuclear weapon · Offensive · Operations research · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Computer Science · Engineering · European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Nuclear Issues and Defense

  • The US-North Korean asymmetrical security dilemma

    Open Access•Er‐win Tan, Jae Jeok Park•International Area Studies Review•2020

  • Taking the archers for granted

    Jesse T Wasson, Christopher E Bluesteen•Defence Studies•2018

  • No First Use

    Michael S Gerson•International Security•2010

  • Simulation analysis on the effectiveness of missile defense

    Open Access•Jaehak Kim, Woosang Kim•Journal of Peace Research•2020

  • National missile defense and (dis)satisfaction

    Open Access•Stephen L Quackenbush, A Cooper Drury•Journal of Peace Research•2011

  • National Missile Defense and Deterrence

    Open Access•Stephen L Quackenbush•Political Research Quarterly•2006

  • The Spread of Nuclear Weapons

    Kenneth N Waltz, Scott Douglas Sagan•The Spread of Nuclear Weapons•2002

  • Deterrence and Defense

    Glenn Herald Snyder•Deterrence and Defense•1961

  • The administration's approach

    Walter B Slocombe•The Washington Quarterly•2000

  • A call to deploy

    Stephen J Hadley•The Washington Quarterly•2000

  • National Missile Defense and the Future of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

    Charles L Glaser, Steve Fetter•International Security•2001

  • Deterrence and Perception

    Robert Jervis•International Security•1982

  • Proliferation Pessimism and Emerging Nuclear Powers

    David J Karl•International Security•1996

  • Deterrence and Compellence in the Gulf, 1990-91

    Janice Gross Stein•International Security•1992

  • China's Military Views the World

    David Shambaugh•International Security•2000

  • Proliferation Pessimism and Emerging Nuclear Powers

    Peter D Feaver, Peter Feaver et al.•International Security•1997

  • Deploying NMD

    Ivo H Daalder, I Daalder et al.•Survival•2000

  • Bush, missile defence and the Atlantic alliance

    P Gordon, P Gordon P Gordon•Survival•2001

  • Deterrance and Defense

    Open Access•Morton H Halperin•Political Science Quarterly•1962

  • Victory Is Possible

    Colin S Gray, Keith B Payne et al.•Foreign Policy•1980

  • National Missile Defense

    George Lewis, Lisbeth Gronlund et al.•Foreign Policy•1999

  • Dictatorships and Double Standards

    John C Campbell, Jeane J Kirkpatrick•Foreign Affairs•1982

  • Soviet Global Strategy

    John C Campbell, William R Kintner•Foreign Affairs•1988

  • Nuclear Strategy and National Style

    Andrew J Pierre, Colin S Gray•Foreign Affairs•1986

  • Defending America

    Philip Zelikow, James M Lindsay et al.•Foreign Affairs•2001

  • Rational Deterrence

    Open Access•Robert Jervis•World Politics•1989

  • Cooperation under the Security Dilemma

    Open Access•Robert Jervis•World Politics•1978

  • Rational Deterrence Theory and Comparative Case Studies

    Open Access•Christopher H Achen, Duncan Snidal•World Politics•1989

  • Rational Deterrence Theory

    Open Access•Richard Ned Lebow, Janice Gross Stein•World Politics•1989

  • Signaling Foreign Policy Interests

    Open Access•James D Fearon•Journal of Conflict Resolution•1997

  • The Sources of Threat Credibility in Extended Deterrence

    Open Access•Vesna Danilovic•Journal of Conflict Resolution•2001

  • Deterrence Failure and Crisis Escalation

    Paul Huth, Bruce Russett•International Studies Quarterly•1988

  • Deterrence and the Cold War

    Open Access•Richard Ned Lebow, Janice Gross Stein•Political Science Quarterly•1995

  • Extended Deterrence and the Outbreak of War

    Open Access•Paul K Huth•American Political Science Review•1988

  • Living with the Soviets

    Paul H Nitze•Foreign Affairs•1984

  • Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes

    Open Access•James D Fearon•American Political Science Review•1994

Unique citing works6
Citations per year0,3
Citation span2006 - 2020 (15)
Citation velocityhistorical
Highly citedNo
Citation typesNeutral: 6

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae