1 For a literature review see Farrell, Theo, ‘Constructivist Security Studies’, International Studies Review, 4 (2002), pp. 50–72Google Scholar .

2 Tannenwald, , Nuclear Taboo, p. 1Google Scholar .

3 Ibid., p. 1.

4 The official British history of the Falklands War suggests that nuclear use may have ‘appeared in a very early draft of the main options paper, only to be taken out almost immediately’. It concludes that British nuclear use ‘was never taken seriously as a realistic possibility’. Indeed, the government would have preferred to remove the nuclear weapons from its warships before dispatching the maritime Task Force to the Falklands: in the event, this would have caused an unacceptable delay, and instead the nuclear weapons were concentrated in secure storage on the two task force aircraft carriers. SirFreedman, Lawrence, The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, Volume II: War and Diplomacy (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2005), pp. 58–60Google Scholar .

5 Tannenwald, , Nuclear Taboo, p. 2Google Scholar .

6 Ibid., pp. 56–7.

7 Kratochwil, Friedrich V., ‘The Force of Prescriptions’, International Organization, 38 (1984), pp. 685–708CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Golinski, Jan, Making Natural Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998)Google Scholar .

8 Hasenclever, Andreas, Mayer, Peter and Rittberger, Volker, Theories of International Regimes (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pp. 23–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

9 Wendt, Alexander, Social Theory of International Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

10 Tannenwald, , Nuclear Taboo, pp. 45–46Google Scholar .

11 Ibid., p. 46.

12 Ibid., p. 47.

13 Neff, Stephen, War and the Law of Nations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Rengger, Nicholas, ‘On the Just War Tradition in the Twenty First Century’, International Affairs, 78 (2002), pp. 353–363CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

14 This is argued in Smith, Thomas W., ‘The New Law of War: Legitimatizing Hi-Tech and Infrastructural Violence’, International Studies Quarterly, 46 (2002), pp. 355–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

15 As occurred following the coalition aerial campaign in the 1991 Gulf War which was conducted within the letter of LOAC. Lewis, Michael W., ‘The Law of Aerial Bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War’, American Journal of International Law, 97 (2003), pp. 481–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

16 Tannenwald, , Nuclear Taboo, pp. 47–50Google Scholar .

17 Kaufmann, Chaim, ‘Threat Inflation and the Failure of the Marketplace of Ideas: The Selling of the Iraq War’, International Security, 29 (2004), pp. 5–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Thrall, A. Trevor, ‘A Bear in the Woods? Threat Framing and the Marketplace of Values’, Security Studies, 16 (2007), pp. 452–489CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

18 Tannenwald, p. 122.

19 Ibid., p. 129.

20 Ibid., pp. 208–9.

21 Ibid., pp. 299–302.

22 Holsti, Ole and Rosenau, James, American Leadership in World Affairs: Vietnam and the Breakdown of Consensus (Boston, MA: Allen and Unwin, 1984)Google Scholar .

23 Tannenwald, , Nuclear Taboo, p. 181Google Scholar .

24 Ibid., p. 153.

25 Risse-Kappen, Thomas, Cooperation Among Democracies: The European Influence on US Foreign Policy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995), pp. 46–51Google Scholar .

26 Tannenwald, , Nuclear Taboo, p. 9Google Scholar .

27 Indeed, during the Cold War the US Army undertook a major reorganisation to fight nuclear battles. See, Bacevich, Andrew J., The Pentomic Era: The US Army Between Korea and Vietnam (Washington DC: National Defense University Press, 1986)Google Scholar .

28 Ibid., pp. 64–6.

29 Sherry, Michael S., Preparing for the Next War: American Plans for Postwar Defense, 1941–1945 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), p. 210Google Scholar .

30 Broscious, David S., ‘Longing for International Control, Banking on Superiority: Harry S. Truman's Approach to Nuclear Weapons’, in Gaddis, John Lewis et al. (eds), Cold War Statesmen Confront the Bomb (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 27Google Scholar .

31 Tannenwald, , Nuclear Taboo, p. 243Google Scholar .

32 In fairness, Tannenwald does argue that the ‘end of the Cold War in 1989 constituted an exogenous shock which shifted the dominant politics of the taboo’. Tannenwald, , Nuclear Taboo, p. 70Google Scholar , emphasis added. But she does not explicitly locate the role of shock in her theory or in the origins of the taboo.

33 Avant, Deborah D., ‘From Mercenaries to Citizen Armies: Explaining Change in the Practice of War’, International Organization, 54 (2000), pp. 48–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Legro, Jeffrey, Rethinking the World: Great Power Strategies and International Order (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005), pp. 13–15Google Scholar .

34 Katzenstein, Peter J., Cultural Norms and National Security: Police and Military in Postwar Japan (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996)Google Scholar ; Berger, Thomas U., Cultures of Antimilitarism: National Security in Germany and Japan (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998)Google Scholar ; Duffield, John S., World Power Forsaken: Political Culture, International Institutions, and German Security Policy after Unification (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar .

35 New history of the Cuban Missile Crisis has revealed both US and Soviet civilian decision-makers to have been terrified at the prospect of nuclear war. See, Lebow, Richard Ned and Stein, Janice Gross, We All Lost the Cold War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994)Google Scholar .

36 Eden, Lynn, Whole World on Fire: Organizations, Knowledge, and Nuclear Weapons Devastation (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004)Google Scholar .

37 Farrell, Theo, The Norms of War: Cultural Beliefs and Modern Conflict (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2005), pp. 114–120Google Scholar .

38 Blair, Bruce G., The Logic of Accidental Nuclear War (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1993), pp. 42–43Google Scholar . Only in the late 1980s, as the Cold War was winding down, were civilian policymakers able to producing effective policy guidance for nuclear war planners. US General Accounting Officer, Strategic Weapons: Nuclear Weapons Targeting Process, GAO/NSIAD-91–319FS (Washington, DC: GAO, 1991).

39 Rhodes, Richard, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995), pp. 565–567Google Scholar .

40 Sagan, Scott D., The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993)Google Scholar .

41 Blair, , Logic.Google ScholarPubMed

42 Tannenwald, , Nuclear Taboo, p. 352Google Scholar .

43 Ibid., p. 355.

44 Farrell, Theo and Lambert, Helene, ‘Courting Controversy: International Law, National Norms and American Nuclear Use’, Review of International Studies, 27 (2001), pp. 309–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

45 Arkin, William M., ‘Secret Plan Outlines the Unthinkable’, Los Angeles Times (10 March 2002)Google Scholar .

46 Kralev, Nicholas, ‘US Drops Pledge on Nukes: Won't Rule Out Hitting Any States’, Washington Times (22 February 2002)Google Scholar .

47 Statement of Admiral James O. Ellis, USN, CINC US Strategic Command before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the Nuclear Posture Review (14 February 2002), pp. 5–6.

48 Sokolsky, Richard, ‘Demystifying the US Nuclear Posture Review’, Survival, 44 (2002), p. 138Google Scholar .

49 Spratt-Furse Amendment to the National Defense Authorization for Fiscal Year 1994 (PL 1003–106), Congressional Bills, 103rd Congress (1993–1994).

50 ‘Partial Victories on Nuclear Weapons in Congress’ (14 November 2002), {http://www.fcn.org/}.

51 Allen, Vicki, ‘Senate Backs Bush on “Mini-Nukes”’, Reuters (21 May 2003)Google Scholar .

52 ‘US Dumps Bunker-Buster, or Not?’, Jane's Defence Weekly (15 November 2005)Google Scholar .

53 Tannenwald, , Nuclear Taboo, p. 384Google Scholar .

54 Lieber, Kier A. and Press, Daryl G., ‘The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of US Primacy’, International Security, 30 (2006), pp. 7–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

55 I am grateful to an anonymous reviewer for this point.

56 Kapur, S. Paul, ‘India and Pakistan's Unstable Peace: Why Nuclear South Asia Is Not Like Cold War Europe’, International Security, 30 (2005), pp. 127–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

57 Tannenwald, , Nuclear Taboo, p. 11Google Scholar , emphasis in original.

58 Ibid., pp. 15–6.

59 Jeffrey Lantis, ‘Norm Decline and Proliferation Pessimism’, unpublished Manuscript (July 2009).

60 Rudra Chaudhuri, ‘Recovering Indian Strategic Culture: A Revisionist Account of India-US Strategic Relations 1947–2009’, PhD thesis, King's College London (2009).

61 Other significant works include Legro, Jeffrey W., Cooperation Under Fire: Anglo-German Restraint During World War II (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995)Google Scholar ; Price, Richard, The Chemical Weapons Taboo (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997)Google Scholar ; Thomas, Ward, The Ethics of Destruction: Norms and Force in International Relations (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001)Google Scholar ; Finnemore, Martha, The Purpose of Intervention: Changing Beliefs about the Use of Force (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003)Google Scholar ; Farrell, , The Norms of WarGoogle Scholar .

62 Gaddis, John Lewis, The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987)Google Scholar .

63 Such a rethinking is offered in Freedman, Lawrence, Deterrence (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2004)Google Scholar .

64 Transnational social networks and normative power politics similarly operated to de-legitimise and eventually outlaw land mines. See, Price, Richard, ‘Reversing the Gun Sights: Transnational Civil Society Targets Land Mines’, International Organization, 52 (1998), pp. 627–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar .