Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Proposed approach to evaluate the deterrence of limited nuclear attacks Cover

Proposed approach to evaluate the deterrence of limited nuclear attacks

Open Access
|Apr 2024

References

  1. Avey, P. C. (2021, April). MAD and Taboo: US expert views on nuclear deterrence, coercion, and non-use norms. Foreign Policy Analysis, 17(2). doi: 10.1093/fpa/oraa019.
  2. Beck, D. G. (2021). China’s Low-Yield Battlefield Nuclear Weapons: A Threat Assessment. US Army School for Advanced Military Studies. Defense Technical Information Center AD1160638. Available at https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/AD1160638
  3. Becker, J. D. (2020). Strategy in the new era of tactical nuclear weapons. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 14(1), pp. 117-140. Available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/26891886
  4. Clemens, J. (2013). An analysis of economic warfare. American Economic Review, 103(3), pp. 523-527.
  5. Corn, G. S., & Corn, G. P. (2012). The law of operational targeting: viewing the LOAC through an operational lens. Texas International Law Journal, 47, pp. 337-380.
  6. Fedorov, Y. (2002). Russia’s doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons. In: Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, London, UK, pp. 1-13.
  7. Fetter, S., & Glaser, C. (2022). Legal, but Lethal: The law of armed conflict and US nuclear strategy. The Washington Quarterly, 45(1), pp. 25-37. doi: 10.1080/0163660X.2022.2054121.
  8. Ford, C. A., Harvey, J. R., Miller, F. C., Payne, K. B., Sagan, S. D., & Weiner, A. S. (2021). Are belligerent reprisals against civilians legal? International Security, 46(2), pp. 166-172. doi: 10.1162/isec_c_00422.
  9. Førland, T. E. (1993). The history of economic warfare: International law, effectiveness, strategies. Journal of Peace Research, 30(2), pp. 151-162. doi: 10.1177/0022343393030002003.
  10. Forsyth, J. W., Saltzman, C. B., & Schaub, G. (2010). Remembrance of things past: The enduring value of nuclear weapons. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 4(1), pp. 74-89. Available at chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/SSQ/documents/Volume-04_Issue-1/ForsythSaltzmanSchaub.pdf
  11. Gallagher, M. A., & Cevallos, M. A. (2021). Nuclear warfare beyond counterforce. Journal of Military Studies, 1(1), pp. 1-11.
  12. Gallagher, M. A., & Sorice, J. E. (2014). Considering alternative nuclear targeting strategies. Comparative Strategy, 33(5), pp. 451-465. doi: 10.1080/01495933.2014.962964.
  13. Goodman, R., & Jinks, D. (2004). International law, U.S. war powers, and the global war on terrorism. Harvard Law Review, 118, pp. 2653-2662.
  14. Gray, C. S. (1979). Nuclear strategy: The case for a theory of victory. International Security, 4(1), pp. 54-87. Available at https://muse.jhu.edu/article/446444/pdf
  15. Green, L. C. (1988). Nuclear weapons and the law of armed conflict. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy, 17(1). Available at https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1895&context=djilp
  16. Hartley, D. S. (2015). DIME/PMESII models. In: Fellman, P. B.-Y. (ed.), Conflict and Complexity. Understanding Complex Systems. Springer, New York. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-1705-1_5.
  17. Hefty, K. E., Dickey, T. M., Gallagher, M. A., & Garcia, F. E. (2016). Modeling a nuclear detonation in a conventional campaign simulation. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology, 13(1), pp. 109-117. doi: 10.1177/1548512915588571.
  18. Hersman, R. K., Rodgers, J., & Farabaugh, B. (2020, December). U.S. Nuclear Warhead Modernization and “New” Nuclear Weapons. Center for Strategic & International Studies, pp. 1-10. Available at WWW.CSIS.ORG
  19. Hippel, F. N. (2023). Should nuclear weapons be made less lethal? Arms Control Today, 53(7), pp. 18-23. Available at www.proquest.com/docview/2865590913?pq-origsite=gscholar&-fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals
  20. Jamison, B. (2022). Nuclear targeting methods and modern deterrence. A Journal of Strategic Airpower and Spacepower, 1(2), pp. 43-56. Available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/48668554
  21. Joint Chiefs of Staff. (2011). Joint Publication 3.0 Joint Operations. United States Department of Defense, Pentagon, Washington, DC, USA. Available at https://www.moore.army.mil/mssp/security%20topics/Potential%20Adversaries/content/pdf/JP%203-0.pdf
  22. Kalshoven, F., & Zegveld, L. (2011). Constraints on the Waging of War: An Introduction to International Humanitarian Law, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  23. Kang, K., & Kugler, J. (2023a). Beyond deterrence: Uncertain stability in the nuclear ear. Conflict Management and Peace Science, 40(6), pp. 655-674. doi: 10.1177/07388942221149670.
  24. Kang, K., & Kugler, J. (2023b). Conditional deterrence: modeling nuclear stability. In: Averting Nuclear War. Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-38688-6_5.
  25. Kang, K., & Kugler, J. (2023c). Deterrence. In: Averting Nuclear War. Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. Springer, Cham. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-38688-6_2.
  26. Karam, P. A. (2021). Additional considerations when responding to a nuclear attack. In: Radiological and Nuclear Terrorism. Advanced Sciences and Technologies for Security Applications. Springer, Cham, pp. 233-244. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-69162-2_19.
  27. Kawai, K. (2022). Japan’s reliance on US extended nuclear deterrence: Legality of use matters today. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament, 5(1), pp. 162-184. doi: 10.1080/25751654.2022.2071053.
  28. Kelsey, D. (2021, October 11). Nuclear Weapons: Who Has what at a Glance: Available at https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
  29. Kofman, M., Fink, A., & Edmonds, J. (2020). Russian Strategy for Escalation Management. Center for Naval Analysis, Arlington, VA. Available at https://www.cna.org/reports/2020/04/DRM-2019-U-022455-1Rev.pdf
  30. Krasny, J., & Kawano, N. (2019). Use of nuclear weapons and the law of armed conflict. Hiroshima peace science, 41, pp. 73-84. Available at https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/76258280/hps_41_73-libre.pdf?1639479535=&response-content-disposition=inline%3B+-filename%3DUse_of_Nuclear_Weapons_and_the_Law_of_Ar.pdf&Expires=1703803983&Signature=HFG5ltJbejQN-mRQ52bK-TIcrjenu0iqGBzSOfUyyySR7sA6WMF~a
  31. Lackey, D. P. (1984). Moral Principles and Nuclear Weapons. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, Maryland.
  32. Lieber, K. A., & Press, D. G. (2009). The nukes we need-preserving the American deterrent. Foreign Affairs, 88(6), pp. 39-51.
  33. Lieber, K. A., & Press, D. G. (2017). The new era of counterforce: Technological change and the future of nuclear deterrence. International Security, 41(9), pp. 9-49.
  34. Lowe, V., & Tzanakopoulos, A. (2012). Economic warfare. In: Wolfrum, R. (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Available at https://ssrn.comabstract=1701590
  35. McCarron, P. B., & Holt, C. A. (2001). A Faustain bargain? Nuclear weapons, negative security assurances, and belligerent reprisal. In: The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs. The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Medford, Massachusetts. pp. 203-237.
  36. McKinney, K. E., Sagan, S. D., & Weiner, A. S. (2020). Why the atomic bombing of Hiroshima would be illegal today. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 76(4), pp. 157-165. doi: 10.1080/00963402.2020.1778344.
  37. Mueller, K. P., Castillo, J. J., Morgan, F. E., Pegahi, N., & Rosen, B. (2007). Striking first: Preemptive and preventive attack in U.S. National Security Policy. Political Science Quarterly, 122(4), pp. 666-667.
  38. Mount, A. (2023, November). A not-so-strategic posture commission. Arms Control Today, 53(9), pp. 23-26. Available at https://www.proquest.com/docview/2886668188?pq-orig-site=gscholar&fromopenview=true&sourcetype=Scholarly%20Journals
  39. Ny, D. (2023). Assess the proposition that india will become the next superpower. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 58(7), pp. 1307-1324. doi: 10.1177/00219096221084255.
  40. Nye, J. S. (2023). Nuclear ethics revisited. Ethics & International Affairs, 37(1), pp. 5-17. doi: 10.1017/S0892679423000047.
  41. Oermann, N. O., & Wolff, H.-J. (2022). Sanctions’, ‘Trade War’, and ‘Economic Warfare. Oxford Academic. doi: 10.1093/oso/9780192848901.003.0002.
  42. Office of the Secretary of Defense. (2018). Nuclear Posture Review. Department of Defense.
  43. Payne, K. B., Harvey, J. R., Miller, F. C., & Soofer, R. (2023). The Rejection of Intentional Population Targeting for ‘Tripolar’ Deterrence. National Institute for Public Policy Information Series, (563).
  44. Perkovich, G., & Vaddi, P. (2021). Proportionate Deterrence: A Model Nuclear Posture Review. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, DC. Available at https://carnegieen-dowment.org/files/Perkovich_Vaddi_NPR_full2.pdf
  45. Quackenbush, S. L. (2011). Deterrence theory: Where do we stand? Review of International Studies, 37(2), pp. 741-762. doi: 10.1017/S0260210510000896.
  46. Rathbun, B. C., & Stein, R. (2020). Greater goods: Morality and attitudes toward the use of nuclear weapons. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 64(5), pp. 787-816. doi: 10.1177/0022002719879994.
  47. Redmon, S. G. (2021). A Threat Analysis on Russian Use of Low Yield Battlefield Nuclear Weapons. Army Command and General Staff College. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Defense Technical Information Center AD116129. Available at https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/trecms/AD1161629
  48. Richardson, E. (2021). Tactical nuclear weapons cannot comply with the law of armed conflict. Fordham International Law Journal, 45, p. 429.
  49. Sagan, S. D. (2023). Just and unjust nuclear deterrence. Ethics & International Affairs, 37(1), pp. 19-28.
  50. Sagan, S. D., & Weiner, A. S. (2021). The rule of law and the role of strategy in U.S. Nuclear doctrine. International Security, 45(4), pp. 126-166. doi: 10.1162/isec_a_00407.
  51. Sisson, T. (2023). Low-yield nuclear parity in great power competition. Doctoral dissertation, National American University. Available at https://www.proquest.com/docview/2821216761?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopen-view=true&sourcetype=Dissertations%20&%20Theses
  52. Smith, Z. L. (2023). The buzz about electromagnetic pulse weapons. Orbis, 67(3), pp. 347-369. doi: 10.1016/j.orbis.2023.06.002.
  53. Song, S. H., & Weiss, G. (2023). Is nuclear deterrence superior to conventional deterrence? Journal of Student Research, 11(3). doi: 10.47611/jsr.v11i3.1801.
  54. The White House. (2022). National Security Strategy. United States Government, Washington. Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf
  55. Tucker, J. E. Jr. (2017). The targeting of non-state-affiliated civilians in cyberspace: Lagging LOAC principles cause uncertainty on both sides. North Carolina Journal of International Law, 42(4), pp. 1013-1060.
  56. U.S. Department of Defense. (2022a). 2022 National Defense Strategy. US Department of Defense, Washington, DC.
  57. U.S. Department of Defense. (2022b). 2022 Nuclear Posture Review. U.S. Department of Defense, Washington, DC.
  58. United States Strategic Command. (2006). Deterrence Operations Joint Operating Concept. Offutt Air Force Base, NE. Available at www.dtic.mil/futurejointwarfare
  59. Wiitala, J. D. (2016). Challenging Minimum Deterrence: Articulating the contemporary relevance of nuclear weapons. Maxwell AFB United States: Air Force Research Institute.
  60. Wirtz, J. J. (2018). How does nuclear deterrence differ from conventional deterrence? Strategic Studies Quarterly, 12(4), pp. 58-75. Available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/26533615
  61. Worley, R. D. (2012). Orchestrating the Instruments of Power. Lulu.com, Morrisville, North Carolina.
  62. Yeaw, C. (2023). The escalatory attraction of limited nuclear employment. Journal of Indo-Pacific Affairs, 6(1). Available at https://nsri.nebraska.edu/-/media/projects/nsri/docs/academic-publications/2023/the-escalatory-attraction-of-limited-nuclear-employment.pdf.
  63. Zagare, F. C., & Kilgour, M. D. (2000). Perfect Deterrence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  64. Zarare, F. C. (2004). Reconciling rationality with deterrence. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 16(2), pp. 107-141. doi: 10.1177/0951629804041117.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/jms-2024-0004 | Journal eISSN: 1799-3350 | Journal ISSN: 2242-3524
Language: English
Page range: 33 - 46
Submitted on: Feb 1, 2024
Accepted on: Mar 3, 2024
Published on: Apr 1, 2024
Published by: National Defense University
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year

© 2024 Mark A. Gallagher, published by National Defense University
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.