Imagining European Missile Defence

Sokolsky, Richard

doi:10.1080/00396330112331343075

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is a lengthy literature arguing that US development and deployment of missile defense creates dissatisfaction in other states and that this dissatisfaction undermines the stability of deterrence (e.g. Bundy et al, 1984/85;Miller, 2001;Lennon, 2002;Wirtz & Larsen, 2001;Sokolsky, 2001). However, neither of these questions has been addressed in a rigorous manner.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National missile defense and (dis)satisfaction

Quackenbush

Drury

2011

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research, applying perfect deterrence theory, has demonstrated that national missile defense generally enhances the stability of deterrence, primarily because it makes the defender's retaliatory threat more credible. However, stability is not ensured, because missile defense has the potential to increase other states' dissatisfaction with the status quo. Consequently, dissatisfied states have an increased incentive to challenge the status quo, undermining deterrence stability. Although there is a lengthy literature debating this point, no one has conducted a rigorous empirical analysis of the impact of national missile defense on satisfaction. To address this significant gap in the literature, we analyze the impact of US missile defense programs on other states' status quo evaluations through analyses of events data, 1985data, -2004data, , and UN voting data, 1985data, -2008

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National missile defense and (dis)satisfaction

Quackenbush

Drury

2011

Journal of Peace Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The primary threat that missile defense will undermine deterrence is that it will engender strong dissatisfaction in other states. Although there is a lengthy literature debating this point (e.g., Lennon 2002;Wirtz and Larsen 2001;Urayama 2004;Sokolsky 2001), no one has conducted a rigorous empirical analysis of this issue. This remains a significant gap in the literature, and a rigorous analysis of the impact of American missile defense programs on other states' status quo evaluations is an important avenue for future research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Much has been written on national missile defense, particularly in the past three decades. 1 Some scholars have focused on evaluating the basic factors that lead to varying missile defense effectiveness (e.g., Wilkening 2000;Lebovic 2002), while others (e.g., Lennon 2002;Wirtz and Larsen 2001;Urayama 2004;Sokolsky 2001) have debated anticipated reactions by Russia, China, and other countries. The largest portion of the literature (e.g., Krepon 2003;Cordesman 2002;Lindsay and O'Hanlon 2001;Lennon 2002;Wirtz and Larsen 2001;Miller and Van Evera 1986) has…”

Section: National Missile Defense and International Securitymentioning

confidence: 99%

National Missile Defense and Deterrence

Quackenbush

2006

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current stance of the Bush administration has renewed debate on the implications of national missile defense. While a large part of that debate concerns its technical and economic feasibility, there is also considerable debate concerning the ramifications of national missile defense for international peace and stability. Unfortunately, few studies have analyzed the implications of missile defense through the lens of deterrence theory. Those that have were based on classical deterrence theory, which is plagued by a variety of logical inconsistencies and empirical anomalies. Accordingly, I examine the implications of national missile defense for deterrence from the vantage point of an alternative theory of deterrence, perfect deterrence theory. The results indicate that national missile defense generally enhances the stability of deterrence; the greatest threat missile defense poses is causing dissatisfaction in potential challengers.

show abstract

“…NATO's track-record on TMD development does not warrant unbridled optimism about the willingness or ability of NATO allies to invest substantial political capital or fi nancial resources in territorial missile defences." 115 Progress has been slow.…”

Section: Natomentioning

confidence: 99%

Britain's Role in U.S. Missile Defense

Stocker¹

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.

show abstract

Imagining European Missile Defence

Cited by 6 publications

References 0 publications

National missile defense and (dis)satisfaction

National missile defense and (dis)satisfaction

National Missile Defense and Deterrence

Britain's Role in U.S. Missile Defense

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About