Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy
Open accessAbstract
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 territory and interests. But an often overlooked question is whether nuclear threats can also coerce adversaries to relinquish possessions or change their behavior. Can nuclear weapons be used to blackmail other countries? The prevailing wisdom is that nuclear weapons are useful for coercion, but this book shows that this view is badly misguided. Nuclear weapons are useful mainly for deterrence and self-defense, not for coercion. The authors evaluate the role of nuclear weapons in several foreign policy contexts and present a trove of new quantitative and historical evidence that nuclear weapons do not help countries achieve better results in coercive diplomacy. The evidence is clear: the benefits of possessing nuclear weapons are almost exclusively defensive, not offensive.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sechser and Fuhrmann argue nuclear coercion and compellence do not work: if nuclear compellence attempt (X = 1) then no compliance behavior by the target state (Y = 1).
“To put it most simply, Sechser and Fuhrmann argue nuclear coercion and compellence do not work: ' if nuclear compellence attempt (X = 1) then no compliance behavior by the target state (Y = 1). '”
From Large-N Qualitative Analysis (LNQA): Causal Generalization in Case Study and Multimethod Research (2023) · cites this paper as Sechser and Fuhrmann (2017)
At least with respect to this scope of cases-arguably the whole universe-Sechser and Fuhrmann claim that nuclear compellence never works.
“At least with respect to this scope of cases -which is arguably the whole universe -Sechser and Fuhrmann claim that nuclear compellence never works.”
From Large-N Qualitative Analysis (LNQA): Causal Generalization in Case Study and Multimethod Research (2023) · cites this paper as Sechser and Fuhrmann (2017)
Cites
Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses
Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpi014 · Cited by 6,223 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Separating Fact from Fiction in the Debate over Drone Proliferation
Horowitz, M. C., Kreps, S. E., & Fuhrmann, M. (2016) · International Security · doi:10.1162/isec_a_00257 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Self-citationDo Emerging Military Technologies Matter for International Politics?
Horowitz, M. C. (2020) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032725 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Large-N Qualitative Analysis (LNQA): Causal Generalization in Case Study and Multimethod Research
Goertz, G., & Haggard, S. (2023) · Perspectives on Politics · doi:10.1017/s1537592723002037 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Sechser, T. S., & Fuhrmann, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Virginia (US)
- Texas A&M University (US)
- Venue
- Cambridge University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press
- Published
- 2016-09-30
- OpenAlex
- W2578138822
- Cited by
- 155
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
- FWCI
- 6.45
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Cambridge University Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Nuclear Issues and Defense
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Defense, Military, and Policy Studies
- Keywords
- nuclear weapons, coercive diplomacy, nuclear deterrence, nuclear blackmail, self-defense, foreign policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review