Cited by 0International Relations and Foreign PolicyNuclear Issues and DefenseChinese history and philosophy

Ritualized Coordination in the PLA Rocket Force: Nuclear Deterrence, Control, and Sacrifice

Open access
Hunter, Cameron·2026·Global Studies Quarterly

Abstract

This article analyzes how China’s People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force (PLARF) uses ritual-like practices to convey specific political messages, around Party control of nuclear weapons and soldiers’ willingness to die for the state. The PLARF has a politically challenging mission, not only to meet the expectations of credible deterrence of its political masters in the Communist Party, but also in the eyes of its adversaries abroad. Consequently, it is insufficient for the PLARF to simply state their willingness to use nuclear weapons. Drawing on the work of Religious Studies scholar Catherine Bell, this article argues that ritualization builds staid policy statements into something reassuring to Chinese elites. Official doctrine calls for the choreographed display of weapons and troops, emphasizing their abilities but crucially also their loyalty to the Party and willingness to sacrifice themselves. To theorize how ritualized practices become politically successful, I turn to the sociologist Randall Collins. Using his interaction ritual chain framework, I argue that rituals produce the shared emotional energy required to agitate troops. PLARF leaders attempt to create symbols and meanings that overspill the immediate scene of the ritual and encounter the domestic and international audiences they target for messaging. Considering ritualizations relating to solidarity, symbolic repair, and sacrifice, this article demonstrates the PLARF addresses multiple goals and audiences with different kinds of ritual-like practices.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/isagsq/ksag018

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 50

Authors
Hunter, C.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Hunter, Cameron
Venue
Global Studies Quarterly
Published
2026-01
Volume
6
Issue
1
ISSN
2634-3797 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7135095743
Cited by
0
References
50
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Global Studies Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
European Research Council (101043468)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Nuclear Issues and Defense
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Chinese history and philosophy
Keywords
military ceremonies, nuclear deterrence, interaction ritual chains, Randall Collins, Catherine Bell, military symbolism, solidarity, symbolic repair, Chinese Communist Party, Chinese nuclear 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