Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-nzrtw Total loading time: 0.429 Render date: 2022-12-06T21:07:17.786Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Atomic Aversion: Experimental Evidence on Taboos, Traditions, and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 February 2013

DARYL G. PRESS*
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College
SCOTT D. SAGAN*
Affiliation:
Stanford University
BENJAMIN A. VALENTINO*
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College
*
Daryl G. Press is Associate Professor, Department of Government, Dartmouth College, 6108 Silsby Hall, Hanover, NH 03755 (daryl.press@dartmouth.edu).
Scott D. Sagan is Caroline S.G. Munro Professor, Department of Political Science, and Senior Fellow, Center for International Security and Cooperation, Stanford University, Encina Hall, 616 Serra Street, Stanford, CA 94305 (ssagan@stanford.edu).
Benjamin A. Valentino is Associate Professor, Department of Government, Dartmouth College, 6108 Silsby Hall, Hanover, NH 03755 (benv@dartmouth.edu).

Abstract

How strong are normative prohibitions on state behavior? We examine this question by analyzing anti-nuclear norms, sometimes called the “nuclear taboo,” using an original survey experiment to evaluate American attitudes regarding nuclear use. We find that the public has only a weak aversion to using nuclear weapons and that this aversion has few characteristics of an “unthinkable” behavior or taboo. Instead, public attitudes about whether to use nuclear weapons are driven largely by consequentialist considerations of military utility. Americans’ willingness to use nuclear weapons increases dramatically when nuclear weapons provide advantages over conventional weapons in destroying critical targets. Americans who oppose the use of nuclear weapons seem to do so primarily for fear of setting a negative precedent that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons by other states against the United States or its allies in the future.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

ABC News/Washington Post. 2002. “Iraq.” http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq17.htm (accessed March 14, 2012). Originally cited by Paul, T.V.. 2009. The Tradition of Non-use of Nuclear Weapons. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Anderson, Philip, Fisher, Michael, Friedman, Jerome, Gottfried, Kurt, Gross, David, Hall, John, Hirsch, Jorge, et al. 2007. “The U.S. Congress Should Act against Nukes.” Open Letter. New York Times, February 14. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/opinion/14iht-edlet.4591692.html?pagewanted=all (accessed September 5, 2012).Google Scholar
Angus Reid Strategies/Simons Foundation. 2007. “Global Poll Finds Varied Views on Nuclear Weapons.” http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/27829/global_poll_finds_varied_views_on_nuclear_weapons/ (accessed March 23, 2012).Google Scholar
Ball, George W. 1983. “The Cosmic Bluff.” New York Review of Books, July 21.Google Scholar
Ban, Ki-moon. 2008. “The United Nations and Security in a Nuclear-weapon-free World.” Address to the East-West Institute, New York, October 24. http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/search_full.asp?statID=351 (accessed November 16, 2012).Google Scholar
Baum, Matthew A., and Groeling, Tim J.. 2010. War Stories: The Causes and Consequences of Public Views of War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baum, Matthew A., and Potter, Philip B. K.. 2008. “The Relationship between Mass Media, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis.” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 3965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J. 2009. In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berrens, Robert P., Bohara, Alok, Jenkins-Smith, Hank, Silva, Carol, and Weimer, David. 2003. “The Advent of Internet Surveys for Political Research: A Comparison of Telephone and Internet Samples.” Political Analysis 11 (1): 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolton, Matthew, and Nash, Thomas. 2010. “The Role of Middle Power–NGO Coalitions in Global Policy: The Case of the Cluster Munitions Ban.” Global Policy 1 (2): 172–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brody, Richard A. 1991. Assessing the President: The Media, Elite Opinion, and Public Support. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Google Scholar
Brooks, Deborah Jordan, and Valentino, Benjamin A.. 2011. “A War of One's Own: Understanding the Gender Gap in Support for War.” Public Opinion Quarterly 75 (2): 270–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carney, Tom. 2006. “Americans, Especially Catholics, Approve of Torture.” National Catholic Reporter, March 24. http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives2/2006a/032406/032406h.htm (accessed August 27, 2012).Google Scholar
Chicago Council on Global Affairs. 2006. “The United States and the Rise of China and India: Results of a 2006 Multination Survey of Public Opinion.” Global Views 2006. https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/UserFiles/File/POS_Topline%20Reports/POS%202006/2006%20Full%20POS%20Report.pdf (accessed: March 22, 2012).Google Scholar
Cohen, Avner. 2010. The Worst-Kept Secret. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Cole, Leonard A. 1998. “The Poison Weapons Taboo: Biology, Culture, and Policy.” Politics and the Life Sciences 17 (2): 119–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costanzo, Mark A., and Gerrity, Ellen. 2009. “The Effects and Effectiveness of Using Torture as an Interrogation Device: Using Research to Inform the Policy Debate.” Social Issues and Policy Review 3 (1): 179210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cottrell, M. Patrick. 2009. “Legitimacy and Institutional Replacement: The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and the Emergence of the Mine Ban Treaty.” International Organization 63 (2): 217–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crane, Conrad C. 1993. Bombs, Cites and Civilians. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Croco, Sarah. 2011. “The Decider's Dilemma: Leader Culpability, Domestic Politics, and War Termination.” American Political Science Review 105 (3): 457–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillin, John. 1991. “Nuclear Arms: Would Use Save Lives or Backfire?Christian Science Monitor, February 13. http://www.csmonitor.com/1991/0213/anuke.html (accessed November 16, 2012).Google Scholar
Dower, John W. 1986. War without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War. New York: Pantheon Books.Google Scholar
Doyle, Michael W. 1997. Ways of War and Peace. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Duffield, John S. 1992. “International Regimes and Alliances Behavior: Explaining NATO Conventional Force Levels.” International Organization 46 (4): 819–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eichenberg, Richard C. 2005. “Victory Has Many Friends: U.S. Public Opinion and the Use of Military Force, 19812005.” International Security 30 (1): 140–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feaver, Peter D., and Christopher Gelpi. 2004. Choosing Your Battles: American Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Finch, Janet. 1987. “The Vignette Technique in Survey Research.” Sociology 21 (1): 105–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 1996. National Interests in International Society. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 1999. “Rules of War and Wars of Rules: The International Red Cross and the Restraint of State Violence.” In Constructing World Culture: International Nongovernmental Organizations Since 1875, eds. Boli, John and Thomas, George M.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 149–65.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha. 2003. The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Finnemore, Martha, and Sikkink, Kathryn. 2001. “Taking Stock: The Constructivist Research Program in International Relations and Comparative Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 4: 391416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics. 2003. “Iraq.” http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq17.htm (accessed March 14, 2012).Google Scholar
Foyle, Douglas C. 1999. Counting the Public In: Presidents, Public Opinion, and Foreign Policy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Freud, Sigmund. 1950. The Interpretation of Dreams. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
Gaddis, John Lewis. 1987. The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gallup. 1991. iPOLL Databank, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut. http://www.ro%er.uconn.edu/data_access/ipoll/ipoll.html (accessed March 14, 2012).Google Scholar
Gallup. 2007. iPOLL Databank, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut. http://www.ro%er.uconn.edu/data_access/ipoll/ipoll.html (accessed April 6, 2011).Google Scholar
Gelpi, Christopher, Feaver, Peter D., and Reifler, Jason. 2009. Paying the Human Costs of War: American Public Opinion and Casualties in Military Conflicts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glasstone, Samuel, and Dolan, Philip J.. 1977. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department of Energy.Google Scholar
Glosson, Buster. 1995. “Frontline: Oral History—General Buster Glosson.” http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/oral/glosson/1.html (accessed July 21, 2011).Google Scholar
Goldsmith, Jack L., and Posner, Eric A.. 2005. The Limits of International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haas, Peter M., Levy, Marc A., and Keohane, Robert O.. 1993. Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hill, Seth J., Lo, James, Vavreck, Lynn, and Zaller, John. 2007. “The Opt-in Internet Panel: Survey Mode, Sampling Methodology, and the Implications for Political Research.” University of California, San Diego. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Holsti, Ole R. 2004. Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Holsti, Ole R., and Rosenau, James. 1984. American Leadership in World Affairs: Vietnam and the Breakdown of Consensus. Crows Nest, Australia: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Hurd, Ian. 2007. After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hymans, Jacques E. 2006. The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions, and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jentleson, Bruce W. 1992. “The Pretty Prudent Public: Post Post-Vietnam American Opinion on the Use of Military Force.” International Studies Quarterly 36 (1): 4973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1990. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter. 1996. The Culture of National Security. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Keohane, Robert O. 1984. After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kinsella, Helen. 2011. The Image before the Weapon: A Critical History of the Distinction between Combatant and Civilian. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kratochwil, Friedrich V. 1989. Rules, Norms, and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larson, Eric V. 1996. Casualties and Consensus: The Historical Role of Casualties in Domestic Support for U.S. Military Operations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
Larson, Eric V., and Savych, Bogdan. 2006. Misfortunes of War: Press and Public Reactions to Civilian Deaths in Wartime. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.Google Scholar
Lian, Bradley, and Oneal, John R.. 1993. “Presidents, the Use of Military Force, and Public Opinion.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 37 (2): 277300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Kier A., and Press, Daryl G.. 2009. “The Nukes We Need: Preserving the American Deterrent.” Foreign Affairs 88 (6): 3951.Google Scholar
Luban, David. 2005. “Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Bomb.” Virginia Law Review 91: 1424–61.Google Scholar
Lumsdaine, David H. 1993. Moral Vision in International Politics: The Foreign Aid Regime, 1949–89. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
March, James G., and Olsen, Johan P.. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Lisa L. 1992. Coercive Cooperation: Explaining Multilateral Economic Sanctions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
McCain, John. 2011. “Bin Laden's Death and the Debate over Torture.” Washington Post, May 11. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bin-ladens-death-and-the-debate-over-torture/2011/05/11/AFd1mdsG_story.html (accessed August 27, 2012).Google Scholar
McKeown, Ryder. 2009. “Norm Regress: U.S. Revisionism and the Slow Death of the Torture Norm.” International Relations 23 (1): 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrow, James D. 2007. “When Do States Follow the Laws of War?American Political Science Review 101 (3): 559–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mueller, John E. 2010. Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Müller, Harald, and Andreas Schmidt. 2010. “The Little-known Story of Deproliferation: Why States Give Up Nuclear Weapons Activities.” In Forecasting Nuclear Proliferation in the 21st Century: The Role of Theory, ed. Potter, William C. with Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 124–58.Google Scholar
National Security Archive. 2012. “Underground Facilities: Intelligence and Targeting Issues.” Electronic Briefing Book No. 372. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB372/index.htm (accessed April 5, 2012).Google Scholar
Obama, Barack H. 2009. “A Just and Lasting Peace.” Nobel Prize Lecture. Oslo, December 10.Google Scholar
Oneal, John R., and Russett, Bruce. 2001. Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Onuf, Nicholas. 1989. A World of Our Making. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Paul, T.V. 2009. The Tradition of Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Paul, T.V. 2010. “Taboo or Tradition? The Non-use of Nuclear Weapons in World Politics.” Review of International Studies 36: 853–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center for the People. 2005. iPOLL Databank, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut. http://www.ro%er.uconn.edu/data_access/ipoll/ipoll.html (accessed September 5, 2012).Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven. 2011. Better Angels of Our Nature. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Posen, Barry R. 1997. “U.S. Security in a Nuclear-Armed World.” Security Studies 6 (3): 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Potter, William C. 2010. “The NPT and the Sources of Nuclear Restraint.” Daedalus 139 (1): 6881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Colin. 2002. “Memorandum to the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs,” Office of the Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, DC, January 26. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB127/02.01.26.pdf (accessed August 27, 2012).Google Scholar
Powell, Colin L., and Perisco, Joseph. 1995. My American Journey: An Autobiography. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Powlick, Philip J., and Katz, Andrew Z.. 1998. “Defining the American Public Opinion/Foreign Policy Nexus.” Mershon International Studies Review 42 (1): 2961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, Richard. 1997. The Chemical Weapons Taboo. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Price, Richard. 1998. “Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines.” International Organization 52 (3): 613–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quester, George. 2006. Nuclear First Strike: Consequences of a Broken Taboo. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Quinnipiac University. 2009. iPOLL Databank, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut. http://www.ro%er.uconn.edu/data_access/ipoll/ipoll.html (accessed March 14, 2012).Google Scholar
Rosen, David M. 2007. “Child Soldiers, International Humanitarian Law, and the Globalization of Childhood.” American Anthropologist 109 (2): 296306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rublee, Maria Rost. 2009. Nonproliferation Norms: Why States Choose Nuclear Restraint. Athens: University of Georgia Press.Google Scholar
Ruggie, John G. 1992. “Multilateralism: The Anatomy of an Institution.” International Organization 46 (3): 561–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagan, Scott D. 1996. “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three Models in Search of a Bomb.” International Security 21 (3): 5488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagan, Scott D. 2004. “Realist Perspectives on Ethical Norms and Weapons of Mass Destruction.” In Ethics and Weapons of Mass Destruction, eds. Hashmi, Sohail and Lee, Steven. New York: Cambridge University Press, 7395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagan, Scott D. 2011. “The Causes of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation.” Annual Review of Political Science 14: 225–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagan, Scott D., and Waltz, Kenneth N.. 2012. The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Sanders, David, Clarke, Harold, Stewart, Marianne C., and Whiteley, Paul. 2007. “Does Mode Matter for Modeling Political Choice?Political Analysis 15 (3): 257–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1980. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1994. “The Role of Nuclear Weapons.” In Turning Point: The Gulf War and U.S. Military Strategy, eds. Benjamin Ederington, L. and Mazarr, Michael J.. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 105–16.Google Scholar
Sherry, Michael. 1987. The Rise of American Air Power. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Shue, Henry. 1978. “Torture.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 7 (2): 124–43.Google Scholar
Shue, Henry. 2006. “Torture in Dreamland: Disposing of the Ticking Bomb.” Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 37 (2/3): 231–40.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth, and Martin, Lisa. 2002. “International Organizations and Institutions.” In the Handbook of International Relations, eds. Carlsnaes, Walter, Risse, Thomas, and Simmons, Beth A. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 192211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, Sonali, and Way, Christopher. 2004. “The Correlates of Nuclear Proliferation: A Quantitative Test.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 48 (6): 859–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sobel, Richard. 2001. The Impact of Public Opinion on U.S. Foreign Policy since Vietnam. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Solingen, Etel. 2007. Nuclear Logics: Contrasting Paths in East Asia and the Middle East. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Soufan, Ali. 2011. Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War against al-Qaeda. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Taft, William H. 2002. “Memorandum to Counsel to the President,.” Office of the Legal Advisor, Department of State, Washington, DC, February 2. http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/politics/20040608_DOC.pdf (accessed August 27, 2012).Google Scholar
Tannenwald, Nina. 1999. “The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-use.” International Organization 53 (3): 433–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannenwald, Nina. 2007. The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-use of Nuclear Weapons since 1945. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Ward. 2001. The Ethics of Destruction: Norms and Force in International Relations. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Time/CNN/Yankelovich Clancy Shulman. 1991.iPOLL Databank, Roper Center for Public Opinion Research, University of Connecticut. http://www.ro%er.uconn.edu/data_access/ipoll/ipoll.html (accessed March 14, 2012).Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael. 2007. “Domestic Audience Costs in International Relations: An Experimental Approach.” International Organization 61 (4): 821–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Weeks, Jessica. 2012. “An Experimental Investigation of the Democratic Peace.” Unpublished Working Paper.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1990. “Nuclear Myths and Political Realities.” American Political Science Review 84 (3): 731–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 2004. Arguing about War. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Webster, Hutton. 1942. Taboo: a Sociological Study. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Wendt, Alexander. 1999. A Social Theory of International Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1994. “Positive Constructs of Public Opinion.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 11 (3): 276–87.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Press Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Press Supplementary Material(File)
File 6 MB
102
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Atomic Aversion: Experimental Evidence on Taboos, Traditions, and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Atomic Aversion: Experimental Evidence on Taboos, Traditions, and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Atomic Aversion: Experimental Evidence on Taboos, Traditions, and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *