IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v107y2013i01p188-206_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Atomic Aversion: Experimental Evidence on Taboos, Traditions, and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons

Author

Listed:
  • PRESS, DARYL G.
  • SAGAN, SCOTT D.
  • VALENTINO, BENJAMIN A.

Abstract

How strong are normative prohibitions on state behavior? We examine this question by analyzing anti-nuclear norms, sometimes called the “nuclear taboo,†using an original survey experiment to evaluate American attitudes regarding nuclear use. We find that the public has only a weak aversion to using nuclear weapons and that this aversion has few characteristics of an “unthinkable†behavior or taboo. Instead, public attitudes about whether to use nuclear weapons are driven largely by consequentialist considerations of military utility. Americans’ willingness to use nuclear weapons increases dramatically when nuclear weapons provide advantages over conventional weapons in destroying critical targets. Americans who oppose the use of nuclear weapons seem to do so primarily for fear of setting a negative precedent that could lead to the use of nuclear weapons by other states against the United States or its allies in the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Press, Daryl G. & Sagan, Scott D. & Valentino, Benjamin A., 2013. "Atomic Aversion: Experimental Evidence on Taboos, Traditions, and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 107(1), pages 188-206, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:107:y:2013:i:01:p:188-206_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055412000597/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jonathan A. Chu, 2019. "A Clash of Norms? How Reciprocity and International Humanitarian Law affect American Opinion on the Treatment of POWs," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(5), pages 1140-1164, May.
    2. DiGiuseppe, Matthew & Del Ponte, Alessandro, 2023. "Bottom-Up Sovereign Debt Preferences," SocArXiv wxr67, Center for Open Science.
    3. Michal Onderco & Michal Smetana & Tom W. Etienne, 2023. "Hawks in the making? European public views on nuclear weapons post‐Ukraine," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 14(2), pages 305-317, May.
    4. Erik Gartzke & Matthew Kroenig, 2017. "Social Scientific Analysis of Nuclear Weapons," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(9), pages 1853-1874, October.
    5. Christopher W. Blair & Jonathan A. Chu & Joshua A. Schwartz, 2022. "The Two Faces of Opposition to Chemical Weapons: Sincere Versus Insincere Norm-Holders," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(4-5), pages 677-703, May.
    6. Amelia C Arsenault & Sarah E Kreps & Keren LG Snider & Daphna Canetti, 2024. "Cyber scares and prophylactic policies: Crossnational evidence on the effect of cyberattacks on public support for surveillance," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(3), pages 413-428, May.
    7. Friedman, Jeffrey A. & Lerner, Jennifer S. & Zeckhauser, Richard, 2015. "How Quantifying Probability Assessments Influences Analysis and Decision Making: Experimental Evidence from National Security Professionals," Working Paper Series 16-016, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    8. Lauren Sukin, 2020. "Credible Nuclear Security Commitments Can Backfire: Explaining Domestic Support for Nuclear Weapons Acquisition in South Korea," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 64(6), pages 1011-1042, July.
    9. Brian C. Rathbun & Rachel Stein, 2020. "Greater Goods: Morality and Attitudes toward the Use of Nuclear Weapons," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 64(5), pages 787-816, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:107:y:2013:i:01:p:188-206_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.