Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-hcslb Total loading time: 0.377 Render date: 2023-01-29T09:48:24.982Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Nuclear Superiority and the Balance of Resolve: Explaining Nuclear Crisis Outcomes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2013

Matthew Kroenig*
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington, D.C. E-mail: mhk32@georgetown.edu
Get access

Abstract

Scholars have long debated whether nuclear superiority or the balance of resolve shapes the probability of victory in nuclear crises, but they have not clearly articulated a mechanism linking superiority to victory, nor have they systematically analyzed the entire universe of empirical cases. Beginning from a nuclear brinkmanship theory framework, I develop a new theory of nuclear crisis outcomes, which links nuclear superiority to victory in nuclear crises precisely through its effect on the balance of resolve. Using a new data set on fifty-two nuclear crisis dyads, I show that states that enjoy nuclear superiority over their opponents are more likely to win nuclear crises. I also find some support for the idea that political stakes shape crisis outcomes. These findings hold even after controlling for conventional military capabilities and for selection into nuclear crises. This article presents a new theoretical explanation, and the first comprehensive empirical examination, of nuclear crisis outcomes.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 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

Adler, Emanuel. 1992. The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms Control. International Organization 46 (1):101–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Asal, Victor, and Beardsley, Kyle. 2007. Proliferation and International Crisis Behavior. Journal of Peace Research 44 (2):139–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, Carol. 2010. Using Nuclear Weapons. Review of International Studies 36 (4):839–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beardsley, Kyle, and Asal, Victor. 2009. Winning with the Bomb. Journal of Conflict Resolution 53 (2):278301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, D. Scott, and Stam, Allan C.. 2000. EUGene: A Conceptual Manual. International Interactions 26 (2):179204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betts, Richard K. 1987. Nuclear Blackmail and Nuclear Balance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Bohlen, Charles E. 1973. Witness to History: 1929–1969. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Brams, Steven J. 1985. Superpower Games: Applying Game Theory to Superpower Conflict. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brecher, Michael, and Wilkenfeld, Jonathan. 2000. A Study of Crisis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Brodie, Bernard. 1946. The Absolute Weapon: Atomic Power and World Order. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D. 1994. Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes. American Political Science Review 88 (3):577–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feaver, Peter D. 1994. The Politics of Inadvertence. Security Studies 3 (3):501–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, Lawrence. 2003. The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy. 3d ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaddis, John Lewis. 1982. Strategies of Containment: A Critical Appraisal of Postwar American National Security Policy. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gaddis, John Lewis. 1987. The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garthoff, Raymond L. 1966. Soviet Military Policy: A Historical Analysis. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Gartzke, Erik, and Kroenig, Matthew. 2009. A Strategic Approach to Nuclear Proliferation. Journal of Conflict Resolution 53 (2):151–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelpi, Christopher F. 1997. Crime and Punishment: The Role of Norms in Crisis Bargaining. American Political Science Review 91 (2):339–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelpi, Christopher F., and Griesdorf, Michael. 2001. Winners or Losers? Democracies in International Crises, 1918–94. American Political Science Review 95 (3):633–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glaser, Charles L. 1990. Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassner, Ron E. 2007. The Path to Intractability: Time and the Entrenchment of Territorial Disputes. Security Studies 31 (3):107–38.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J. 1979. Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. Econometrica 47 (1):153–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, Joseph. 2003. Dyadic Processes and International Crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution 47 (5):669–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Stanley. 1965. The State of War: Essays on the Theory and Practice of International Politics. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Horelick, Arnold L. 1964. The Cuban Missile Crisis: An Analysis of Soviet Calculations and Behavior. World Politics 16 (3):363–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1982. The Renewal of Strategy. In The Strategic Imperative: New Policies for American Security, edited by Huntington, Samuel P., 152. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Huth, Paul K. 1990. The Extended Deterrent Value of Nuclear Weapons. Journal of Conflict Resolution 34 (2):270–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, Paul K., and Russett, Bruce. 1984. What Makes Deterrence Work? Cases from 1900 to 1980. World Politics 36 (4):496526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huth, Paul K., Gelpi, Christopher, and Bennett, D. Scott. 1993. The Escalation of Great Power Militarized Disputes: Testing Rational Deterrence Theory and Structural Realism. American Political Science Review 87 (3):609–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Security. 1985. Documentation: White House Tapes and Minutes of the Cuban Missile Crisis. 10 (1):164203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaggers, Keith, and Gurr, Ted Robert. 1995. Tracking Democracy's Third Wave with the Polity III Data. Journal of Peace Research 32 (4):469–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1979–80. Why Nuclear Superiority Doesn't Matter. Political Science Quarterly 94 (4):617–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1984. The Illogic of American Nuclear Strategy. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1989. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1994. What Do We Want to Deter and How Do We Deter It? In Turning Point: The Gulf War and U.S. Military Strategy, edited by Ederington, L. Benjamin and Mazar, Michael J., 117–36. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Kahn, Herman. 1960. On Thermonuclear War. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Fred. 1991. The Wizards of Armageddon. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Kapur, S. Paul. 2007. Dangerous Deterrent: Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Conflict in South Asia. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Tomz, Michael, and Wittenberg, Jason. 2000. Making the Most of Statistical Analyses: Improving Interpretation and Presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):347–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, Gary, and Zeng, Langche. 2001. Explaining Rare Events in International Relations. International Organization 55 (3):693715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroenig, Matthew. 2010. Exporting the Bomb: Technology Transfer and the Spread of Nuclear Weapons. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kydd, Andrew. 2000. Arms Races and Arms Control: Modeling the Hawk Perspective. American Journal of Political Science 44 (2):222–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lieber, Keir A., and Press, Daryl G.. 2006. The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Primacy. International Security 30 (4):744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgenthau, Hans J. 1948. Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Nitze, Paul H. 1956. Atoms, Strategy, and Policy. Foreign Affairs 34 (2):187–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nitze, Paul H. 1976–77. Deterring Our Deterrent. Foreign Policy 25:195210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, T.V. 1994. Asymmetric Conflicts: War Initiation by Weaker Powers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posen, Barry. 2006. A Nuclear Armed Iran: A Difficult but Not Intractable Policy Problem. Working Paper. New York: The Century Foundation. Available at ⟨http://tcf.org/publications/2006/12/pb596⟩. Accessed 15 July 2012.Google Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1987. Crisis Bargaining, Escalation, and MAD. American Political Science Review 81 (3):717–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1988. Nuclear Brinkmanship with Two-Sided Incomplete Information. American Political Science Review 82 (1):155–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1989. Nuclear Deterrence and the Strategy of Limited Retaliation. American Political Science Review 83 (2):503–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 1990. Nuclear Deterrence Theory: The Search for Credibility. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, Robert. 2003. Nuclear Deterrence Theory, Nuclear Proliferation, and National Missile Defense. International Security 27 (4):86118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Press, Daryl G. 2005. Calculating Credibility: How Leaders Assess Military Threats. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Puhani, Patrick A. 2000. The Heckman Correction for Sample Selection and Its Critique. Journal of Economic Surveys 14 (1):5368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reiter, Dan, and Stam, Allan C.. 2002. Democracies at War. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russett, Bruce M. 1993. Grasping the Democratic Peace: Principles for a Post-Cold War World. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sagan, Scott D. 1989. Moving Targets: Nuclear Strategy and National Security. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sagan, Scott D. 1995. More Will Be Worse. In The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate, edited by Sagan, Scott D. and Waltz, Kenneth N.. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, Thomas C. 1966. Arms and Influence. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A., and Hopkins, Daniel J.. 2005. The Constraining Power of International Treaties: Theory and Methods. American Political Science Review 99 (4):623–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, J. David, Bremer, Stuart, and Stuckey, John. 1972. Capability, Distribution, Uncertainty, and Major Power War, 1820–1965. In Peace, War, and Numbers, edited by Russett, Bruce M., 1948. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
Slantchev, Branislav L. 2005. Military Coercion in Interstate Crises. American Political Science Review 99 (4):533–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Glenn H. 1971. “Prisoner's Dilemma” and “Chicken” Models in International Politics. International Studies Quarterly 15 (1):66103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, Glenn H., and Diesing, Paul. 1977. Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining, Decision Making, and System Structure in International Crises. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Szulc, Tad. 1986. Fidel: A Critical Portrait. New York: Morrow.Google Scholar
Tannenwald, Nina. 2007. The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thucydides. 1954. The History of the Peloponnesian War. Translated by Warner, Rex. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Wittenberg, Jason, and King, Gary. 2003. Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results. Journal of Statistical Software 8 (1):129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Trachtenberg, Marc. 1985. The Influence of Nuclear Weapons in the Cuban Missile Crisis. International Security 10 (1):137–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
U.S. Department of Defense. 1980. Annual Report, FY 1981. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
U.S. Senate. 1968. Preparedness Investigation Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services. Status of U.S. Strategic Power. 90th Cong., 2d sess., 30 April.Google Scholar
Wagner, R. Harrison. 1982. Deterrence and Bargaining. Journal of Conflict Resolution 26 (2):329–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1979. Theory of International Politics. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Waltz, Kenneth N. 1995. More May Be Better. In The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate, edited by Sagan, Scott D. and Waltz, Kenneth N.. 345. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Wohlstetter, Albert. 1958. The Delicate Balance of Terror. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kroenig supplementary material

Kroenig supplementary material

Download Kroenig supplementary material(File)
File 123 KB
46
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.

Nuclear Superiority and the Balance of Resolve: Explaining Nuclear Crisis Outcomes
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.

Nuclear Superiority and the Balance of Resolve: Explaining Nuclear Crisis Outcomes
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.

Nuclear Superiority and the Balance of Resolve: Explaining Nuclear Crisis Outcomes
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? *