IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jocore/v53y2009i2p258-277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating the Nuclear Peace Hypothesis*

* This paper has been replicated

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Rauchhaus

    (Department of Political Science University of California, Santa Barbara)

Abstract

Do nuclear weapons reduce the probability of war? This article quantitatively evaluates the nuclear peace hypothesis. The results indicate that the impact of nuclear weapons is more complicated than is conventionally appreciated. Both proliferation optimists and pessimists find confirmation of some of their key claims. When a nuclear asymmetry exists between two states, there is a greater chance of militarized disputes and war. In contrast, when there is symmetry and both states possess nuclear weapons, then the odds of war precipitously drop. When combined, these findings provide support for the existence of the stability—instability paradox. Evidence suggests that while nuclear weapons promote strategic stability, they simultaneously allow for more risk-taking in lower intensity disputes.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Rauchhaus, 2009. "Evaluating the Nuclear Peace Hypothesis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(2), pages 258-277, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:53:y:2009:i:2:p:258-277
    DOI: 10.1177/0022002708330387
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022002708330387
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0022002708330387?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dagobert L. Brito & Michael D. Intriligator, 1996. "Proliferation and the Probability of War," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(1), pages 206-214, March.
    2. D. Scott Bennett & Allan C. Stam, 2000. "Eugene : A conceptual manual," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 26(2), pages 179-204, March.
    3. Lake, David A., 1992. "Powerful Pacifists: Democratic States and War," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 86(1), pages 24-37, March.
    4. Zorn, Christopher, 2005. "A Solution to Separation in Binary Response Models," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(2), pages 157-170, April.
    5. Wagner, R. Harrison, 1991. "Nuclear Deterrence, Counterforce Strategies, and the Incentive to Strike First," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(3), pages 727-749, September.
    6. Siverson, Randolph M. & Ward, Michael D., 2002. "The Long Peace: A Reconsideration," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(3), pages 679-691, July.
    7. Michael Intriligator & Dagobert Brito, 1981. "Nuclear proliferation and the probability of nuclear war," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 37(2), pages 247-260, January.
    8. Thompson, William R., 1996. "Democracy and peace: putting the cart before the horse?," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 141-174, January.
    9. Gartzke, Erik & Li, Quan & Boehmer, Charles, 2001. "Investing in the Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 391-438, April.
    10. Wendt, Alexander, 1992. "Anarchy is what states make of it: the social construction of power politics," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(2), pages 391-425, April.
    11. Beck, Nathaniel & Katz, Jonathan N., 2001. "Throwing Out the Baby with the Bath Water: A Comment on Green, Kim, and Yoon," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 55(2), pages 487-495, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Maritza Chan, 2016. "Non-Nuclear Weapons States Must Lead in Shaping International Norms on Nuclear Weapons: A Practitioner Commentary," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 7(3), pages 408-410, September.
    2. Klaus Abbink & Lu Dong & Lingbo Huang, 2021. "Arms Races and Conflict: Experimental Evidence," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(637), pages 1883-1904.
    3. Saima Sarwar & Muhammad Wasif Siddiqi & Abdul Nasir & Zahoor Ahmed, 2016. "New Direction to Evaluate the Economic Impact of Peace for Bilateral Trade among World Economies," The Pakistan Development Review, Pakistan Institute of Development Economics, vol. 55(4), pages 725-740.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Mousseau, 2005. "Comparing New Theory with Prior Beliefs: Market Civilization and the Democratic Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 22(1), pages 63-77, February.
    2. John Robst & Solomon Polachek & Yuan-Ching Chang, 2007. "Geographic Proximity, Trade, and International Conflict/Cooperation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 24(1), pages 1-24, February.
    3. Kristian Skrede Gleditsch & Idean Salehyan & Kenneth Schultz, 2008. "Fighting at Home, Fighting Abroad," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(4), pages 479-506, August.
    4. Christopher Gelpi & Joseph M. Grieco, 2001. "Attracting Trouble," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(6), pages 794-817, December.
    5. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2006. "Power Positions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(1), pages 3-27, February.
    6. Lingyu Lu & Cameron G. Thies, 2010. "Trade Interdependence and the Issues at Stake in the Onset of Militarized Conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 27(4), pages 347-368, September.
    7. David Lektzian & Glen Biglaiser, 2014. "The effect of foreign direct investment on the use and success of US sanctions," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(1), pages 70-93, February.
    8. Brian Lai & Dan Reiter, 2000. "Democracy, Political Similarity, and International Alliances, 1816-1992," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 44(2), pages 203-227, April.
    9. Xiang Jun & Primiano Christopher B. & Huang Wei-hao, 2015. "Aggressive or Peaceful Rise? An Empirical Assessment of China’s Militarized Conflict, 1979–2010," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 21(3), pages 301-325, August.
    10. Zeev Maoz, 2009. "The Effects of Strategic and Economic Interdependence on International Conflict Across Levels of Analysis," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 223-240, January.
    11. Ana Carolina Garriga, 2009. "Regime Type and Bilateral Treaty Formalization," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(5), pages 698-726, October.
    12. Jason Enia & Patrick James, 2015. "Regime Type, Peace, and Reciprocal Effects," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 523-539, June.
    13. Susan Ariel Aaronson & M. Rodwan Abouharb & K. Daniel Wang, 2015. "The Liberal Illusion Is Not a Complete Delusion: The WTO Helps Member States Keep the Peace Only When It Increases Trade," Global Economy Journal (GEJ), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 455-484, December.
    14. Gerald L. McCallister, 2016. "Beyond Dyads: Regional Democratic Strength’s Influence on Dyadic Conflict," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(2), pages 295-321, March.
    15. Intriligator Michael D, 2011. "Peace Science and Peace Economics Can Help Win the Fight against Nuclear Proliferation," Peace Economics, Peace Science, and Public Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 1-10, January.
    16. Lars-Erik Cederman, 2001. "Modeling the Democratic Peace as a Kantian Selection Process," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 45(4), pages 470-502, August.
    17. William J. Dixon & Paul D. Senese, 2002. "Democracy, Disputes, and Negotiated Settlements," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(4), pages 547-571, August.
    18. Jacob Ausderan, 2018. "Reassessing the democratic advantage in interstate wars using k-adic datasets," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(5), pages 451-473, September.
    19. Emilie M. Hafner-Burton & Alexander H. Montgomery, 2012. "War, Trade, and Distrust: Why Trade Agreements Don’t Always Keep the Peace," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(3), pages 257-278, July.
    20. David Brulé, 2006. "Congressional Opposition, the Economy, and U.S. Dispute Initiation, 1946-2000," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 50(4), pages 463-483, August.

    Replication

    This item has been replicated by:
  • Mark S. Bell & Nicholas L. Miller, 2015. "Questioning the Effect of Nuclear Weapons on Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 59(1), pages 74-92, February.

    • More about this item

    Keywords

    nuclear; deterrence; MAD; mutual;
    All these keywords.

    Lists

    This item is featured on the following reading lists, Wikipedia, or ReplicationWiki pages:
    1. Evaluating the Nuclear Peace Hypothesis A Quantitative Approach (J Conflict Resolution 2009) in ReplicationWiki

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jocore:v:53:y:2009:i:2:p:258-277. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.