Cited by 155Nuclear Issues and DefenseInternational Relations and Foreign PolicyDefense, Military, and Policy Studies

Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy

Open access
Sechser, Todd S., Fuhrmann, Matthew·2016·Cambridge University Press eBooks

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1017/9781316227305

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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). '”
  • 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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sechser, T. S., & Fuhrmann, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Virginia (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
Venue
Cambridge University Press eBooks
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
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