Nuclear balance and the initiation of nuclear crises: Does superiority matter?

  title={Nuclear balance and the initiation of nuclear crises: Does superiority matter?},
  author={Kyung-Hong Suh},
  journal={Journal of Peace Research},
  • Kyung-Hong Suh
  • Published 5 May 2022
  • Political Science
  • Journal of Peace Research
The nuclear competition school, an emerging theoretical perspective on the political effect of nuclear weapons, argues that a favorable nuclear balance can significantly reduce one’s expected costs of nuclear war and therefore affect the interaction between nuclear-armed states, such as deterrence and crisis outcomes. This new perspective also presents a wide array of empirical evidence demonstrating the significant effect of the nuclear balance of power on political outcomes, thereby… 


Proliferation and International Crisis Behavior
The literature on international conflict is divided on the impact of nuclear proliferation on state conflict. The optimists' argument contends that nuclear weapons raise the stakes so high that
Bargaining, Nuclear Proliferation, and Interstate Disputes
Contrasting claims about the consequences of nuclear weapons rely on different interpretations about how leaders respond to risk, uncertainty, and the balance of power. Nuclear optimists use
Questioning the Effect of Nuclear Weapons on Conflict
We examine the effect of nuclear weapons on interstate conflict. Using more appropriate methodologies than have previously been used, we find that dyads in which both states possess nuclear weapons
The MAD Who Wasn't There: Soviet Reactions to the Late Cold War Nuclear Balance
ABSTRACT What do nuclear weapons mean for the stability of the military balance? Mutually assured destruction (MAD) describes a stalemated balance of power where nuclear adversaries possess
Why Nuclear Superiority Doesn't Matter
Recent debates on the role of nuclear weapons in American defense policy have not clarified the important issues or dealt with the underlying assumptions that are involved. While some of the
What Does It Take to Deter? Regional Power Nuclear Postures and International Conflict
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
The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Primacy
For nearly half a century, the world's most powerful nuclear-armed states have been locked in a condition of mutual assured destruction. Since the end of the Cold War, however, the nuclear balance
Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy
With sweeping changes in the Soviet Union and East Europe having shaken core assumptions of U.S. defense policy, it is time to reassess basic questions of American nuclear strategy and force
Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes
  • J. Fearon
  • Political Science, Economics
    American Political Science Review
  • 1994
International crises are modeled as a political “war of attrition” in which state leaders choose at each moment whether to attack, back down, or escalate. A leader who backs down suffers audience
Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy
Are nuclear weapons useful for coercive diplomacy? Since 1945, most strategic thinking about nuclear weapons has focused on deterrence - using nuclear threats to prevent attacks against the nation's