IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/joupea/v60y2023i5p760-776.html

Evidence of the unthinkable: Experimental wargaming at the nuclear threshold

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew W Reddie

    (School of Information, University of California, Berkeley)

  • Bethany L Goldblum

    (Department of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley)

Abstract

Ongoing nuclear modernization programs in Russia, China, and the USA have reopened longstanding debates among scholars concerning whether tailored nuclear weapons are likely to have destabilizing consequences for international security. Without data to adjudicate this debate, however, these discussions have remained entirely theoretical. In this article, we introduce an experimental wargaming platform, SIGNAL, to quantify the effect of tailored nuclear capabilities on the nuclear threshold in a simulated environment. We then compare these results with a survey experiment using scenarios related to military basing, cyber operations, and nuclear threats from the wargame environment. While the survey experiments suggest that the presence of tailored nuclear capabilities increases the likelihood of conflict escalation, this trend diminishes in the wargaming context. Across both data-generating processes, we find support for the proposition that lower-yield nuclear weapons are used as a substitute for their higher-yield counterparts. These results have consequences for recent and ongoing policy debates concerning strategic posture and the future of arms control. This work also makes methodological contributions to the design and application of experimental wargaming for social science research, particularly for scenarios where data are limited or non-existent.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew W Reddie & Bethany L Goldblum, 2023. "Evidence of the unthinkable: Experimental wargaming at the nuclear threshold," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 60(5), pages 760-776, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:joupea:v:60:y:2023:i:5:p:760-776
    DOI: 10.1177/00223433221094734
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00223433221094734
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/00223433221094734?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. 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.
    2. Michael A. Levi, 2004. "Dreaming of clean nukes," Nature, Nature, vol. 428(6986), pages 892-892, April.
    3. Powell, Robert, 1988. "Nuclear Brinkmanship with Two-Sided Incomplete Information," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(1), pages 155-178, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Rathbun, Brian C. & Kertzer, Joshua D. & Paradis, Mark, 2017. "Homo Diplomaticus: Mixed-Method Evidence of Variation in Strategic Rationality," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(S1), pages 33-60, April.
    6. Tingley, Dustin H. & Walter, Barbara F., 2011. "The Effect of Repeated Play on Reputation Building: An Experimental Approach," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 343-365, April.
    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. 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. 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.
    3. Yuki Matsuura & Masanori Kubota & Kaoru Hidaka & Taku Yukawa, 2024. "Who Pursues the Bomb? Leaders’Education Abroad and the Development of Weapons of Mass Destruction," OSIPP Discussion Paper 24E005, Osaka School of International Public Policy, Osaka University.
    4. Michal Smetana & Marek Vranka & Ondrej Rosendorf, 2023. "The lesser evil? Experimental evidence on the strength of nuclear and chemical weapon “taboosâ€," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 40(1), pages 3-21, January.
    5. Caleb Pomeroy & Brian C Rathbun, 2024. "Just business? Moral condemnation and virtuous violence in the American and Russian mass publics," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 61(4), pages 560-575, July.
    6. 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.
    7. Brandon K. Yoder & Kyle Haynes, 2021. "Signaling under the Security Dilemma: An Experimental Analysis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 65(4), pages 672-700, April.
    8. Keren Yarhi-Milo & Joshua D. Kertzer & Jonathan Renshon, 2018. "Tying Hands, Sinking Costs, and Leader Attributes," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 62(10), pages 2150-2179, November.
    9. 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.
    10. Efe Sevin & M. Evren Eken, 2025. "Yet another turn? priotising the needs of diplomacy over the capabilities of generative AI," Place Branding and Public Diplomacy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 21(3), pages 309-314, September.
    11. Teng, Jimmy, 2012. "Solving Two Sided Incomplete Information Games with Bayesian Iterative Conjectures Approach," MPRA Paper 40061, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 12 Jul 2012.
    12. 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.
    13. John R. Hamman & Miguel A. Martínez-Carrasco, 2023. "Managing Uncertainty: An Experiment on Delegation and Team Selection," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 34(6), pages 2272-2295, November.
    14. repec:osf:socarx:r73pv_v1 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. 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.
    16. Seok Joon Kim, 2022. "Quick on the Draw: American Negativity Bias and Costly Signals in International Relations," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 66(2), pages 246-271, February.
    17. Kyle Beardsley & Victor Asal, 2009. "Nuclear Weapons as Shields," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 26(3), pages 235-255, July.
    18. Marina Agranov & Jeongbin Kim & Leeat Yariv, 2023. "Coordination with Differential Time Preferences: Experimental Evidence," Working Papers 2023-10, Princeton University. Economics Department..
    19. 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, nationales Agenda-Setting und Internationales Ab," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Global Governance SP IV 2010-301, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    20. Kyle Beardsley & Victor Asal, 2009. "Winning with the Bomb," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(2), pages 278-301, April.
    21. Karen Evelyn Hauge & Snorre Kverndokk & Andreas Lange, 2024. "On the opposition to market institutions on moral grounds," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-8, 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:joupea:v:60:y:2023:i:5:p:760-776. 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://www.prio.no/ .

    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.