|
|
|
|
Targeted Proliferation in Multipolarity |
|
| Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Get this Document | Similar Titles |
|
STOP! You can now view the document associated with this citation by clicking on the "View Document as HTML" link below. |
|
Click here to view the document
|
Abstract:
|
The normative wisdom is that states should not share nuclear weapons technology, and consequently do so rarely. In the 1968/1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty, nuclear weapon states promise not to assist non-nuclear weapon states to obtain nuclear weapons, who in turn promise not to receive nuclear weapons. The text of the NPT gives the impression that there is little trade in nuclear weapons, both normatively and actually. However, nuclear weapons have been shared and our goal is to explain the conditions under which they are shared. Those that argue that deterrence is easy to achieve explain nuclear sharing as a function of whether a state seeks to have a target state possessing effective deterrence or not, and this usually depends on the state’s interest in preserving the systemic status quo. Those that argue that nuclear deterrence is difficult to achieve see nuclear weapons as akin to conventional weapons, and therefore see few incentives in sharing such powerful technology. We argue that nuclear sharing, because nuclear weapons are so exceptionally powerful instruments, is never conducted with allies, and only with geographically distant and dependent proxies opposing a powerful and common adversary. In effect, a theory incorporating the underlying logic of the balance of power environment does a superior job of explaining when states share nuclear assets than any theory grounded in the special qualities of nuclear weapons themselves. In all six of our cases of nuclear sharing, the principal incentive to transfer nuclear resources was the setting-up of a nuclear proxy to distract the attention of another power. |
Most Common Document Word Stems:
nuclear (255), weapon (222), u.s (127), state (126), china (124), soviet (120), share (97), israel (85), prolifer (85), press (83), missil (68), assist (67), south (65), technolog (62), proxi (61), new (60), franc (54), chines (54), york (53), british (52), power (49), |
|
 | Convention | | All Academic Convention makes running your annual conference simple and cost effective. It is your online solution for abstract management, peer review, and scheduling for your annual meeting or convention. |  | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. |  | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! |  | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! |  | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. |  | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! |  | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
Association:
Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
|
Citation:
|
MLA Citation:
| Schofield, Julian. "Targeted Proliferation in Multipolarity" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA, Aug 31, 2006 <Not Available>. 2011-03-13 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p151584_index.html> |
APA Citation:
| Schofield, J. , 2006-08-31 "Targeted Proliferation in Multipolarity" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott, Loews Philadelphia, and the Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA Online <PDF>. 2011-03-13 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p151584_index.html |
Publication Type: Proceeding Abstract: The normative wisdom is that states should not share nuclear weapons technology, and consequently do so rarely. In the 1968/1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty, nuclear weapon states promise not to assist non-nuclear weapon states to obtain nuclear weapons, who in turn promise not to receive nuclear weapons. The text of the NPT gives the impression that there is little trade in nuclear weapons, both normatively and actually. However, nuclear weapons have been shared and our goal is to explain the conditions under which they are shared. Those that argue that deterrence is easy to achieve explain nuclear sharing as a function of whether a state seeks to have a target state possessing effective deterrence or not, and this usually depends on the state’s interest in preserving the systemic status quo. Those that argue that nuclear deterrence is difficult to achieve see nuclear weapons as akin to conventional weapons, and therefore see few incentives in sharing such powerful technology. We argue that nuclear sharing, because nuclear weapons are so exceptionally powerful instruments, is never conducted with allies, and only with geographically distant and dependent proxies opposing a powerful and common adversary. In effect, a theory incorporating the underlying logic of the balance of power environment does a superior job of explaining when states share nuclear assets than any theory grounded in the special qualities of nuclear weapons themselves. In all six of our cases of nuclear sharing, the principal incentive to transfer nuclear resources was the setting-up of a nuclear proxy to distract the attention of another power. |
Get this Document:
Find this citation or document at one or all of these locations below. The links below may have the citation or the entire document for free or you may purchase access to the document. Clicking on these links will change the site you're on and empty your shopping cart.
| Document Type: |
PDF |
| Page count: |
37 |
| Word count: |
21275 |
| Text sample: |
| Julian Schofield and Micah Zenko “Nuclear Solicitation – Why States Help Proxies not Friends” Julian Schofield Concordia University Micah Zenko Brandeis University September 2006 “Prepared for delivery at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association September 2006. Copyright by the American Political Science Association.” Introduction 1 Julian Schofield and Micah Zenko The normative wisdom is that states should not share nuclear weapons technology and consequently do so rarely. In the 1968/1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty nuclear weapon states |
| Khan Proliferation Networks and the Nuclear Slippery Slope ” in James Russell (ed) Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction in the Middle East: Directions and Policy Options in the New Century (New York: Palgrave-Macmillan 2006) 93-114 101 cclxi Scott Sagan “Th Perils of Proliferation in South Asia ” Asian Survey Vol.41 No.6 (Nov-Dec 2001) 1064- 1086 1065 cclxii Kenneth N. Waltz “More May Be Better ” in The Spread of Nuclear Weapons Scott D. Sagan Kenneth N. Waltz (New |
Similar Titles:
U.S. Policy to Asia for Regional Powers in New Science and Technology: China, Russia, Japan and Korea with Nuclear Potential
The Politics of Nuclear Cooperation: Why States Share Nuclear Weapons Technology
|
|