Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:06:23.176Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Taboo or tradition? The non-use of nuclear weapons in world politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 November 2010

T. V. PAUL
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The non-use of nuclear weapons since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 has emerged as a major puzzle in international politics. Traditional International Relations scholarship views this largely as a function of the deterrent relationship that emerged between the nuclear powers, especially during the Cold War era. The fact that nuclear weapons have not been used against non-nuclear states, despite temptations to use them, remains a challenge to the deterrence-only explanation. More normatively oriented scholars have argued that a taboo has emerged against the non-use of nuclear weapons. Nina Tannenwald's book, The Nuclear Taboo is the most comprehensive study on this subject which relies on constructivist logic of inter-subjective taboo-like prohibition in accounting for the puzzle. While I see much merit in Tannenwald's empirical case studies, it is far-fetched to call the non-use largely a function of a taboo-like prohibition. For, taboos by their very nature forbid discussions of their breaking, whereas nuclear states have national military strategies that call for nuclear use under certain circumstances. They have also in many crises situations considered the use of nuclear weapons. I have argued in my book, The Tradition of Non-use of Nuclear Weapons (Stanford University Press, 2009), that a more modest tradition can be given partial credit for the absence of nuclear attacks on non-nuclear states. The tradition emerged because of a realisation of the horrendous effects of nuclear attack (a material fact) which generated reputation costs for a potential user. These reputation costs in turn generated self-deterrence which has helped to create a tradition which is partially restraining nuclear states from using their weapons for anything other than existential deterrence. Unlike Tannenwald, I contend that the tradition is not a strict taboo and hence it can be altered if material and political circumstances compel nuclear states to do so. The recent policy changes that have taken place in nuclear powers such as the US, Russia, UK, and France do not augur well for the tradition as the conditions for atomic use have been expanded to include prevention, pre-emption and other non-proliferation objectives involving rogue states and terrorist groups.

Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , October 2010 , pp. 853 - 863
Copyright
Copyright © British International Studies Association 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 More details on my position in favour of the tradition can be found in,Paul, T. V., The Tradition of Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009), chaps 1–2.Google Scholar

2 Her earlier works include: Tannenwald, Nina, ‘Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo’, International Security, 29 (Spring 2005), pp. 5–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Tannenwald, Nina, ‘The Nuclear Taboo: The US and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-use’, International Organization, 53 (Summer 1999), pp. 433–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Price, Richard and Tannenwald, Nina, ‘Norms and Deterrence: The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboos’, in Katzenstein, Peter J. (ed.), The Culture of National Security (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), p. 137Google Scholar . Previous publications on this subject include: Schelling, Thomas C., ‘The Role of Nuclear Weapons’, in Ederington, Benjamin L. and Mazarr, Michael J. (eds), Turning Point: The Gulf War and US Military Strategy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994), p. 110Google Scholar ; Schelling, Thomas C., The Strategy of Conflict (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), p. 260Google Scholar ; Gaddis, John Lewis, ‘Nuclear Weapons, the End of the Cold War, and the Future of the International System’, in Garrity, Patrick J. and Maaranen, Steven A. (eds) Nuclear Weapons in a Changing World (New York: Plenum Press, 1992)Google Scholar ; Gizewski, Peter, ‘From Winning Weapon to Destroyer of the World: The Nuclear Taboo in International Politics’, International Journal, 51 (Summer 1996), pp. 397–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Paul, T. V., ‘Nuclear Taboo and War Initiation: Nuclear Weapons in Regional Conflicts’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 39 (December 1995), pp. 696–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Quester, George, Nuclear First Strike: Consequences of a Broken Taboo (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006)Google Scholar .

3 These are covered extensively in Paul, Tradition of Non-Use, chaps 3 and 4, as well as Tannenwald, , The Nuclear Taboo (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

4 For these see, Paul, Tradition of Non-Use.

5 Tannenwald, , The Nuclear Taboo, p. 14Google Scholar .

6 Ibid., p. 15.

7 Ibid., p. 16.

8 Ibid., p. 17.

9 Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, ‘Tradition’, {http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/tradition}.

10 Shils, , Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981), p. 12Google Scholar .

11 Ibid., pp. 14–5. This is only one take on traditions. Eric Hobsbawm, for example, considers tradition to be much more rigid than custom. My view of tradition is accordingly closer to Hobsbawm's conception. See, Hobsbawm, , ‘Introduction: Inventing Traditions’, in Hobsbawm, Eric and Ranger, Terence (eds), The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), pp. 2–3Google Scholar .

12 Tannenwald, , The Nuclear Taboo, p. 11Google Scholar .

13 For these policy changes, see US President, ‘The National Security Strategy of the US of America’, Washington, DC, (17 September 2002), p. 15; US White House, ‘National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction’, Washington, DC (December 2002), p. 3. See also, Wirtz, James J. and Russell, James A., ‘US Policy on Preventive War and Preemption’, The Nonproliferation Review, 10 (Spring 2003), pp. 113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar . For the other nuclear powers, see Yuri Fedorov, ‘Russia's Doctrine on the Use of Nuclear Weapons’, working paper, Columbia International Affairs Online (November 2002), {http://www.ciaonet.org/wps/fey02}; BBC News Online,‘UK “Prepared to Use Nuclear Weapons’” (20 March 2002), {http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/1883258.stm}; Evans, Michael and Brown, David, ‘Britain's Nuclear Warning to Saddam’, The Times (London) (21 March 2002)Google Scholar ; Lichfield, John, ‘Chirac Threatens Nuclear Attack on States Sponsoring Terrorism’, The Independent, online edition (20 January 2006)Google Scholar , Yost, David S., ‘New Approached to Deterrence in Britain, France, and the US’, International Affairs, 81 (2005), p. 106CrossRefGoogle Scholar . Pant, Harsh V., ‘India's Nuclear Doctrine and Command Structure: Implications for India and the World’, Comparative Strategy, 24 (July 2005), p. 282CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

14 In a Washington Post-ABC News Poll prior to the War, six in ten Americans surveyed found a US nuclear response acceptable ‘if Hussein orders use of chemical or biological weapons on US troops’. Morin, Richard, ‘Most Favor Nuclear Option against Iraq’, Washington Post (18 December 2002), p. A18Google Scholar .

15 Arian, Asher, ‘Public Opinion and Nuclear Weapons’, Strategic Assessment, 1 (October 1998)Google Scholar , {http://www.inss.org.il/publications.php?cat=25&incat=&read=603}.

16 I owe this point to an anonymous reviewer.

17 On this, see Paul, The Tradition of Non-use of Nuclear Weapons; Cumings, Bruce, ‘On the Strategy and Morality of American Nuclear Policy in Korea, 1950 to the Present’, Social Science Japan Journal, 1:1 (1998), p. 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Foot, Rosemary J., The Wrong War: American Policy and the Dimensions of the Korean Conflict, 1950–53 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1985), pp. 114–115, 126–127Google Scholar .

18 Adams, Sherman, Firsthand Report: The Inside Story of the Eisenhower Administration (London: Hutchinson, 1962), p. 55Google Scholar .

19 Hersh, Seymour M., The Price of Power: Kissinger in the Nixon White House (New York: Summit Books, 1983), p. 120Google Scholar ; Sagan, Scott C., ‘The Madman Nuclear Alert: Secrecy, Signaling, and Safety in October 1969’ International Security, 27:4 (Spring 2003), pp. 150–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

20 Arkin, William M., ‘Calculated Ambiguity: Nuclear Weapons and the Gulf War’, The Washington Quarterly, 19:4 (1996), p. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

21 Arkin, William M., ‘The Nuclear Option in Iraq’, Los Angeles Times (26 January 2003)Google Scholar , p. M1.

22 Wirtz, James J. and Russell, James A., ‘US Policy on Preventive War and Preemption’, The Nonproliferation Review, 10:1 (Spring 2003), pp. 113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

23 Cohen, Avner, ‘The Last Nuclear Moment’, New York Times (6 October 2003), p. A17Google Scholar .

24 Karpin, Michael, The Bomb in the Basement: How Israel Went Nuclear and What that Means for the World (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), p. 324Google Scholar .

25 The New Statesman, ‘Falklands: All Out War’ (24 August 1984), pp. 8–9. For the official versions, see Freedman, Lawrence, ‘The Official History of the Falklands Campaign’, War and Diplomacy, 2 (London: Routledge, 2005), pp. 58–59Google Scholar .

26 Byers, Michael, Custom, Power, and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar .

27 Quoted inBundy, , Danger and Survival, p. 537Google Scholar .

28 Tannenwald, , The Nuclear Taboo, p. 4Google Scholar .

29 For instance, see Tannenwald, , Nuclear Taboo, pp. 22–23Google Scholar ; ‘The Nuclear Taboo’; Price and Tannenwald, ‘Norms and Deterrence’.

30 For more details see Paul, , Tradition of Non-Use, chap. 5Google Scholar .

31 A study by Alexander Downes convincingly shows that democracies are historically proven to target civilian populations in desperate military circumstances. He argues that ‘leaders in democracies pay little if any price for inflicting large-scale harm on civilians in a costly or protracted war. The public is far more likely to turn against a war if they believe it is unwinnable than because it kills significant numbers of non-combatants’. Downes, Alexander B., Targeting Civilians in War (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2008), p. 248Google Scholar .

32 Democracies can engage in high intensity wars with non-democracies, as they tend to consider those states ‘unreasonable’ and ‘potentially dangerous’. Owen, John M., ‘How Liberalism Produces Democratic Peace’, International Security, 19 (Autumn 1994), pp. 87–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; see also Reus-Smit, Christian, ‘Liberal Hierarchy and the License to Use Force’, Review of International Studies, 31, suppl. S1 (December 2005), pp. 71–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar .