Casual observation suggests that the two most common answers to the question above are: 1) there's a very good chance that they'd start a nuclear war with Israel; and 2) there's no real reason to think any other state would be impacted in any significant way. I find...
Editor's Note: Back in February I riffed on a post by Erik Voeten in which Erik discussed two articles in International Organization (IO). One, by our colleague Matt Kroenig, argued that nuclear...
I have enjoyed the recent exchange between Kroenig and Sechser & Fuhrmann (see here, here, and here). One interesting point that came up regards the role of conventional military capabilities...
Nuclear weapons may be useful for deterrence, but can they also coerce? Our theories reach opposite conclusions: we say no; Kroenig says yes. Both sides marshal evidence to support their arguments. So who is right? Our goal in this post is to evaluate Kroenig’s empirical results and respond to his critique of our article.
Todd Sechser and Matthew Fuhrmann argue that possessing nuclear weapons confers few benefits for coercive diplomacy.
Matt Kroenig argues that states should strive for nuclear superiority as it confers strategic advantages.
Phil Arena was supposed to present his paper, "Crisis Bargaining and Domestic Opposition" at APSA. If you are reading this on an RSS feed, you should see the audio. His slides are not integrated, as his audio presentation is in mp3 format. This is the first of what I hope will be more of these. If you need an APSA fix, or are just interested in the topic, take 10-15 minutes to listen to Phil's presentation and leave feedback.If and when we accumulate more #virtualAPSA2012 presentations, I will create a more conference-like environment for them.