Profile image
By The Cato Institute Event Videos
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:

Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy

Tuesday, March 7, 2017 13:34
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

Can states that possess nuclear weapons better coerce adversaries than states without nuclear weapons?  In Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy, Todd S. Sechser and Matthew Fuhrmann argue that the empirical record undermines the case that nuclear weapons are a useful coercive tool. They show that states with nuclear weapons don’t have more leverage in settling territorial disputes, they don’t initiate military challenges more often, they are not more likely to escalate ongoing disputes, they are not more likely to blackmail rivals, and they are just as likely as nonnuclear states to make concessions in high-stakes confrontations. This is not to say nuclear weapons are unimportant. They are extremely useful for deterrence. But it turns out they don’t enable states to get their way with ease. These findings have important implications for foreign policy and our understanding of complex issues ranging from Iran and North Korea, to the prospect of conflict in the South China Sea, to America’s own approach to the world. Please join us for this timely and provocative discussion.


We encourage you to Share our Reports, Analyses, Breaking News and Videos. Simply Click your Favorite Social Media Button and Share.

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Top Global


Top Alternative




Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.