The lesser evil? Experimental evidence on the strength of nuclear and chemical weapon “taboos”

IF 1.7 2区 社会学 Q2 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS Conflict Management and Peace Science Pub Date : 2022-09-05 DOI:10.1177/07388942221124515
Michal Smetana, M. Vranka, Ondřej Rosendorf
{"title":"The lesser evil? Experimental evidence on the strength of nuclear and chemical weapon “taboos”","authors":"Michal Smetana, M. Vranka, Ondřej Rosendorf","doi":"10.1177/07388942221124515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We present findings of a survey experiment on a sample of 2350 American and British citizens, in which we examined attitudes towards nuclear and chemical strikes. Our findings demonstrate that even though the public accurately judges nuclear weapons as more destructive and indiscriminate, it is still more averse to the use of chemical than nuclear weapons. Our follow up study has shown that individuals are significantly more likely to associate chemical weapons with “rogue states” and terrorists, and associate nuclear weapons with modern powers. The findings contribute to scholarship on the “taboos” surrounding the (non-)use of WMDs in world politics.","PeriodicalId":51488,"journal":{"name":"Conflict Management and Peace Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conflict Management and Peace Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/07388942221124515","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

We present findings of a survey experiment on a sample of 2350 American and British citizens, in which we examined attitudes towards nuclear and chemical strikes. Our findings demonstrate that even though the public accurately judges nuclear weapons as more destructive and indiscriminate, it is still more averse to the use of chemical than nuclear weapons. Our follow up study has shown that individuals are significantly more likely to associate chemical weapons with “rogue states” and terrorists, and associate nuclear weapons with modern powers. The findings contribute to scholarship on the “taboos” surrounding the (non-)use of WMDs in world politics.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
小恶?关于核武器和化学武器“禁忌”强度的实验证据
我们对2350名美国和英国公民的样本进行了调查实验,研究了他们对核武器和化学武器袭击的态度。我们的调查结果表明,尽管公众准确地判断核武器更具破坏性和滥杀滥伤,但与核武器相比,他们仍然更反对使用化学武器。我们的后续研究表明,个人更有可能将化学武器与“流氓国家”和恐怖分子联系起来,并将核武器与现代大国联系起来。这些发现有助于研究在世界政治中(不)使用大规模杀伤性武器的“禁忌”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Conflict Management and Peace Science
Conflict Management and Peace Science INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Conflict Management and Peace Science is a peer-reviewed journal published five times a year from 2009. It contains scientific papers on topics such as: - international conflict; - arms races; - the effect of international trade on political interactions; - foreign policy decision making; - international mediation; - and game theoretic approaches to conflict and cooperation. Affiliated with the Peace Science Society (International), Conflict Management and Peace Science features original and review articles focused on news and events related to the scientific study of conflict and peace. Members of the Peace Science Society (International) receive an annual subscription to Conflict Management and Peace Science as a benefit of membership.
期刊最新文献
Assessing border walls’ varied impacts on terrorist group diffusion Using committee amendments to improve estimates of state foreign policy preferences Arming to fight: Rebel-government militarization and the escalation of violence in civil wars Media impact on perceptions in postwar societies: Insights from Nepal Internal drivers of self-rule referendums
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1