IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/compsc/v42y2025i2p190-219.html

Nuclear weapons and interstate conflict behavior: The moderating influence of civil–military relations

Author

Listed:
  • Rizwan Asghar

Abstract

Do nuclear weapons deter aggression or make states more likely to engage in conflict? I argue that we can explain whether and when nuclear capabilities increase state belligerence by examining the role of domestic institutions that shape state security policy. This study provides evidence that nuclear weapons have an emboldening effect on conflict initiation by elevating state capacity but that whether this emboldening translates into higher levels of belligerence depends on the extent to which civilians (relative to the military) control the state, an important dimension of state decision-making. Results provide suggestive evidence in support of my argument. I illustrate this mechanism using the case of Pakistan (1972–2010).

Suggested Citation

  • Rizwan Asghar, 2025. "Nuclear weapons and interstate conflict behavior: The moderating influence of civil–military relations," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 42(2), pages 190-219, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:compsc:v:42:y:2025:i:2:p:190-219
    DOI: 10.1177/07388942241238649
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/07388942241238649
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/07388942241238649?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ejaz Hussain, 2019. "India–Pakistan Relations: Challenges and Opportunities," Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, , vol. 6(1), pages 82-95, April.
    2. Nordhaus, William & Oneal, John R. & Russett, Bruce, 2012. "The Effects of the International Security Environment on National Military Expenditures: A Multicountry Study," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(3), pages 491-513, July.
    3. Narang, Vipin & Nelson, Rebecca M., 2009. "Who Are These Belligerent Democratizers? Reassessing the Impact of Democratization on War," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 63(2), pages 357-379, April.
    4. Brian Lai & Dan Slater, 2006. "Institutions of the Offensive: Domestic Sources of Dispute Initiation in Authoritarian Regimes, 1950–1992," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(1), pages 113-126, January.
    5. Sechser, Todd S. & Fuhrmann, Matthew, 2013. "Crisis Bargaining and Nuclear Blackmail," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 67(1), pages 173-195, January.
    6. Fearon, James D., 1994. "Domestic Political Audiences and the Escalation of International Disputes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(3), pages 577-592, September.
    7. Weeks, Jessica L., 2012. "Strongmen and Straw Men: Authoritarian Regimes and the Initiation of International Conflict," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 106(2), pages 326-347, May.
    8. Debs, Alexandre & Goemans, H.E., 2010. "Regime Type, the Fate of Leaders, and War," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(3), pages 430-445, August.
    9. Hainmueller, Jens & Mummolo, Jonathan & Xu, Yiqing, 2019. "How Much Should We Trust Estimates from Multiplicative Interaction Models? Simple Tools to Improve Empirical Practice," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 27(2), pages 163-192, April.
    10. Carter, David B. & Signorino, Curtis S., 2010. "Back to the Future: Modeling Time Dependence in Binary Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 271-292, July.
    11. Glenn Palmer & Tamar London & Patrick Regan, 2004. "What's Stopping You?: The Sources of Political Constraints on International Conflict Behavior in Parliamentary Democracies," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 1-24, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthew Wilson & Carla Martinez Machain, 2018. "Militarism and Dual-Conflict Capacity," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(1), pages 156-172, January.
    2. Xiaojun Li & Dingding Chen, 2021. "Public opinion, international reputation, and audience costs in an authoritarian regime," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(5), pages 543-560, September.
    3. Matthew Hauenstein, 2020. "The conditional effect of audiences on credibility," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(3), pages 422-436, May.
    4. Daehee Bak, 2020. "Autocratic political cycle and international conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 37(3), pages 259-279, May.
    5. Kyungwon Suh, 2023. "Nuclear balance and the initiation of nuclear crises: Does superiority matter?," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(2), pages 337-351, March.
    6. Randolph M Siverson & Richard AI Johnson, 2018. "Trigger-happy? Military regimes and the timing of conflict," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(5), pages 544-558, September.
    7. Bryan Rooney, 2019. "Emergency Powers in Democracies and International Conflict," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(3), pages 644-671, March.
    8. Jacob Ausderan, 2015. "Following an Experienced Shepherd: How a Leader’s Tenure Affects the Outcome of International Crises," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 41(1), pages 26-45, January.
    9. Adam, Antonis & Tsavou, Evi, 2020. "One strike and you’re out! Dictators’ fate in the aftermath of terrorism," MPRA Paper 103772, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 2020.
    10. Casey Crisman-Cox, 2022. "Democracy, reputation for resolve, and civil conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 59(3), pages 382-394, May.
    11. Kyle Haynes, 2017. "Diversionary conflict: Demonizing enemies or demonstrating competence?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(4), pages 337-358, July.
    12. Alex Braithwaite & Douglas Lemke, 2011. "Unpacking Escalation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 28(2), pages 111-123, April.
    13. Sasha de Vogel & Jessica S Sun, 2024. "Crisis bargaining, domestic politics and Russia's invasion of Ukraine," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(5), pages 534-555, September.
    14. Joshua Tschantret, 2021. "Democratic breakdown and terrorism," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 38(4), pages 369-390, July.
    15. Keisuke Nakao, 2026. "Democratic victory and war duration: Why are democracies less likely to win long wars?," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(3), pages 264-285, May.
    16. Jeff Carter, 2024. "Introduction to special issue: New research on leaders and peace science," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 41(2), pages 99-109, March.
    17. Pamp, Oliver & Lebacher, Michael & Thurner, Paul W. & Ziegler, Eva, 2021. "Explaining destinations and volumes of international arms transfers: A novel network Heckman selection model," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    18. Zhengping Zhang, 2024. "The buffer role of emotions in international conflict: theoretical evidence supporting for patriotic education," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 487-503, December.
    19. Potter, Philip B. K. & Baum, Matthew A., 2014. "Information, Popular Constraint, and the Democratic Peace," Working Paper Series rwp14-015, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    20. H.E. Goemans, 2008. "Which Way Out?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 52(6), pages 771-794, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:sae:compsc:v:42:y:2025:i:2:p:190-219. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://pss.la.psu.edu/ .

    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.