The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
BURDEN SHARING, STRATEGY, AND THE DESIGN OF NATO
Abstract
This study shows that recent technological advancements in weapons, the policy of detente, and the strategic reorientation of NATO are increasing the relative importance of damage-limiting weapons. The resulting increases in excludable benefits and common-interest awareness permit NATO allies to share defense burdens more efficiently via markets according to benefits received than was the case in the 1960s. The statistical results support our hypothesis that the distribution and nature of benefits, not industrial size, determine the relative burdens of the allies. Statistical tests discriminate between the joint product and deterrence models. War is a matter not so much of arms as of expenditure, through which arms may be made of service. (Thucydides, History I)
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples)
SHAPIRO, S. S., & WILK, M. B. (1965) · Biometrika · doi:10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591 · Cited by 23,480
Olson, M. (1965) · doi:10.4159/9780674041660 · Cited by 14,191
Cited by
A Theoretical Analysis of Transnational Terrorism
Sandler, T., Tschirhart, J. T., & Cauley, J. (1983) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/1956010 · Cited by 358
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- SANDLER, T., & FORBES, J. F.
- Venue
- Economic Inquiry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1980-07
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 425-444
- ISSN
- 0043-3640 (ISSN-L)
- 0095-2583
- 1465-7295
- OpenAlex
- W2086612574
- Cited by
- 244
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: BURDEN SHARING, STRATEGY, AND THE DESIGN OF NATO. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1980.tb00588.x
- The paper
- SANDLER, T., & FORBES, J. F. (1980). BURDEN SHARING, STRATEGY, AND THE DESIGN OF NATO. Economic Inquiry. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.1980.tb00588.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
