IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/intorg/v53y1999i03p433-468_44.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use

Author

Listed:
  • Tannenwald, Nina

Abstract

We have recently witnessed the fiftieth anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare. The non-use of nuclear weapons since then remains the single most important phenomenon of the nuclear age. Yet we still lack a full understanding of how this tradition arose and is maintained and of its prospects for the future. The widely cited explanation is deterrence, but this account is either wrong or incomplete. Although an element of sheer luck no doubt has played a part in this fortuitous outcome, this article argues that a normative element must be taken into account in explaining why nuclear weapons have not been used since 1945. A normative prohibition on nuclear use has developed in the global system, which, although not (yet) a fully robust norm, has stigmatized nuclear weapons as unacceptable weapons of mass destruction. Without this normative stigma, there might have been more “use.†This article examines this phenomenon in the context of the nuclear experience of the United States.

Suggested Citation

  • Tannenwald, Nina, 1999. "The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(3), pages 433-468, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:intorg:v:53:y:1999:i:03:p:433-468_44
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0020818399440779/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. Eyckmans, Johan & Kverndokk, Snorre, 2010. "Moral concerns on tradable pollution permits in international environmental agreements," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1814-1823, July.
    2. Stephanie Claudia Hoffman, 2004. "What Am I? That is the Question. Norm Contestation, Reinforcement and Coexistence and the Creation of CFSP," Les Cahiers européens de Sciences Po 1, Centre d'études européennes (CEE) at Sciences Po, Paris.
    3. Geoffrey P.R. Wallace, 2008. "Alliances, Institutional Design, and the Determinants of Military Strategy," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 25(3), pages 224-243, July.
    4. Kim Sass Mikkelsen, 2017. "Fuzzy-set Case Studies," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(3), pages 422-455, August.
    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. Snorre Kverndokk, 2013. "Moral positions on tradable permit markets," Chapters, in: Roger Fouquet (ed.), Handbook on Energy and Climate Change, chapter 22, pages 490-499, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. Gary Goertz, 2004. "Constraints, Compromises, and Decision Making," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(1), pages 14-37, February.
    8. Trace Lasley & Clayton Thyne, 2015. "Secession, legitimacy and the use of child soldiers," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 32(3), pages 289-308, July.
    9. Inke Torfs & Ellen Wayenberg & Lieselot Danneels, 2023. "Institutional shifts and punctuated patterns in digital policy," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 40(3), pages 363-388, May.
    10. Victor Asal & Nazli Avdan & Gary Ackerman, 2023. "Breaking taboos: Why insurgents pursue and use CBRN weapons," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(2), pages 193-208, March.
    11. Junk, Julian & Blatter, Joachim, 2010. "Transnational attention, domestic agenda-setting and international agreement: Modeling necessary and sufficient conditions for media-driven humanitarian interventions [Transnationale Aufmerksamkeit," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2010-301, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    12. 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.
    13. Kyle Beardsley & Victor Asal, 2009. "Winning with the Bomb," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(2), pages 278-301, April.
    14. 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.
    15. Andrew Smith & Jennifer Johns, 2020. "Historicizing Modern Slavery: Free-Grown Sugar as an Ethics-Driven Market Category in Nineteenth-Century Britain," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 166(2), pages 271-292, October.
    16. Kim Sass Mikkelsen, 2017. "Negative Case Selection: Justifications and Consequences for Set-Theoretic MMR," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(4), pages 739-771, November.
    17. Patrick Gill-Tiney, 2022. "A Liberal Peace?: The Growth of Liberal Norms and the Decline of Interstate Violence," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(3), pages 413-442, April.
    18. Mitchell, Ronald B., 2011. "Transparency for governance: The mechanisms and effectiveness of disclosure-based and education-based transparency policies," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(11), pages 1882-1890, September.

    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:intorg:v:53:y:1999:i:03:p:433-468_44. 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/ino .

    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.