|
|
|
Sort Order |
|
|
|
Items / Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
111746
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2012.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The possession of nuclear weapons confers many benefits on a state. The path to proliferation, however, is often violent. When a state initiates a nuclear weapons program, it signals its intent to fundamentally alter its bargaining environment. States that once had an advantage will now be disadvantaged. This change in the environment is not instantaneous, but evolves slowly over time. This gives states both opportunities and incentives to resolve underlying grievances, by force if necessary, before a nuclear weapons program is completed. Our cross-national analyses of nuclear weapons program and the onset of militarized conflict confirm this expectation. In particular, the closer a state gets to acquiring nuclear weapons, the greater the risk it will be attacked (especially over territorial issues). Once nuclear weapons are acquired, however, the risk of being attacked dramatically drops, though not below the risk of attack for non-proliferators.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
083999
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2008.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
This project is an integrated quantitative and qualitative examination of the influences on U.S. foreign policy toward a sample of Middle East states (Israel, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia) over the last quarter century. Examinations of general trends in the relationships between these dyads, regression analyses, and brief case studies look at a number of factors contributing to the construction of these relationships, what these relationships look like, and how they have changed over time. The findings show that both policy reciprocation and U.S. executive play key roles in determining U.S. foreign policy outcomes. Also discussed is the utility of a broad-based research approach including the integration of qualitative and quantitative work, the examination of individual-level, state-level, and structure-level influences in an inclusive framework, as well as the taking interactive trends over time and the various degrees of conflict within these trends ("high,""low," and "middle") into account
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|