Risky Systems: Tactical Nuclear Weapons and Dispute Outcomes

Abstract

This study examines whether different types of nuclear weapons confer different bargaining advantages in international disputes. Existing theory holds that states elicit concessions from opponents by changing the expected costs and benefits of conflict. Nuclear powers accomplish this by taking escalatory steps to increase the risk of nuclear war. Given that tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs) are riskier than others, it seems likely that they will have a greater impact on disputes than strategic weapons. I test this hypothesis using quantitative data on nuclear weapons and militarized interstate disputes occurring between 1945-2010. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis, I found evidence that states with tactical nuclear weapons are more likely to win disputes compared to those without TNWs. This relationship remains significant even when controlling for conventional capabilities, system of government, and general nuclear capabilities.