How durable is the nuclear weapons taboo?

Gibbons, Rebecca Davis; Lieber, Keir A.

doi:10.1080/01402390.2018.1529568

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This means that we did not find any evidence of any specific moral foundations-related barriers connected with the use of nuclear or chemical weapons, suggesting that the public does not necessarily separate them as a qualitatively distinct category of immoral weapons, which use by civilized states is virtually unthinkable -as research into nuclear and chemical weapons "taboos" would suggest (Price and Tannenwald 1996). As such, although more research is certainly required to better understand and conceptualize nuclear and chemical weapons nonuse in world politics, at least the attitudes of our respondents suggest that the nonuse might indeed be closer to a time-honored -and possibly quite fragile -tradition (Gibbons and Lieber 2019;Paul 2009;Sagan 2004).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

How Moral Foundations Shape Public Approval of Nuclear, Chemical, and Conventional Strikes: New Evidence from Experimental Surveys

Smetana¹,

Vranka²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present the results of two survey experiments on public support for nuclear, chemical, and conventional strikes. We examined how moral values of individuals interact with the approval of different kinds of strikes and with the effects of information about the ingroup and out-group fatalities. Our results show that while the public is more averse to the employment of chemical weapons than to the conduct of nuclear or conventional strikes, the overall relationship between strike approval and the individuals’ moral values does not differ across the three experimental treatments. In addition, we found that individuals’ scores in so-called “binding” moral values affect the sensitivity of the public for in-group fatalities. Findings of our paper contribute to the broader debates in the field about the strength and nature of the norms against the use of nuclear and chemical weapons, and about the role of morality in the public attitudes to the use of military force.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

How Moral Foundations Shape Public Approval of Nuclear, Chemical, and Conventional Strikes: New Evidence from Experimental Surveys

Smetana¹,

Vranka²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This means that we did not find any evidence of any specific moral foundations-related barriers connected with the use of nuclear or chemical weapons, suggesting that the public does not necessarily separate them as a qualitatively distinct category of immoral weapons, which use by civilized states is virtually unthinkable -as research into nuclear and chemical weapons "taboos" would suggest (Price and Tannenwald 1996). As such, although more research is certainly required to better understand and conceptualize nuclear and chemical weapons non-use in world politics, at least the attitudes of our respondents suggest that the non-use might indeed be closer to a time-honored -and possibly quite fragile -tradition (Sagan 2004;Paul 2009;Gibbons and Lieber 2019).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

How moral foundations shape public approval of nuclear, chemical, and conventional strikes: new evidence from experimental surveys

Smetana

Vranka

2020

International Interactions

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we present the results of two survey experiments on public support for nuclear, chemical, and conventional strikes. We examined how moral values of individuals interact with the approval of different kinds of strikes and with the effects of information about the ingroup and out-group fatalities. Our results show that while the public is more averse to the employment of chemical weapons than to the conduct of nuclear or conventional strikes, the overall relationship between strike approval and the individuals' moral values does not differ across the three experimental treatments. In addition, we found that individuals' scores in so-called "binding" moral values affect the sensitivity of the public for in-group fatalities. Findings of our paper contribute to the broader debates in the field about the strength and nature of the norms against the use of nuclear and chemical weapons, and about the role of morality in the public attitudes to the use of military force.

show abstract

“…This work contradicts the taboo literature, but the issue remains unresolved. Many have suggested more work is needed to determine the extent of the nuclear taboo’s influence (Carpenter & Montgomery, 2019; Gibbons & Lieber, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much scholarship on attitudes about nuclear use has focused on the American public. Consequently, “which countries share the aversion to using nuclear weapons” remains largely unknown (Gibbons et al, 2018, p. 29). How allies would react to U.S. nuclear use is of importance because reputational concerns are relevant to calculations about the use of force (Fearon, 1994; Yarhi-Milo, 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental evidence on determinants of support for nuclear use in response to threats of nuclear retaliation.

Sukin

2020

Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper utilizes survey experiments among representative samples of U.S. and South Korean citizens to investigate the strength of the nuclear taboo in both countries. It finds evidence that a majority of respondents in both countries prefer to respond to conventional military invasions with options that do not involve a nuclear first strike. Furthermore, the paper addresses the question: Can states alter support for nuclear use by credibly signaling their intent to avoid or limit nuclear escalation? The evidence suggests that they can. As the probability of nuclear retaliation increases, support for nuclear use decreases. Public Significance StatementThis project helps explain when and why individuals are most likely to support the use of nuclear weapons. It shows the conditions under which nuclear use gains approval as well as public preferences about nuclear targeting.

show abstract

How durable is the nuclear weapons taboo?

Cited by 17 publications

References 17 publications

How Moral Foundations Shape Public Approval of Nuclear, Chemical, and Conventional Strikes: New Evidence from Experimental Surveys

How Moral Foundations Shape Public Approval of Nuclear, Chemical, and Conventional Strikes: New Evidence from Experimental Surveys

How moral foundations shape public approval of nuclear, chemical, and conventional strikes: new evidence from experimental surveys

Experimental evidence on determinants of support for nuclear use in response to threats of nuclear retaliation.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About