Nuclear weapons, the United States and alliances in Europe and Asia: Toward an institutional perspective

Reference list

• Australian Department of Defence. (1993). Strategic review 1993. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.
   Google Scholar
• BASIC. (2012, March 5–6). NATO’s Deterrence and Defence Posture Review and the Future of Nuclear Weapons. A roundtable synthesis organized by IFSH, BASIC, ACA and IRIS, Paris. Retrieved from http://www.basicint.org/sites/default/files/synthesis-paris-nato2012.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Beckley, M. (2015). The myth of entangling alliances: Reassessing the security risks of US defense pacts. International Security, 39(4), 7–48. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00197
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Børresen, J. (2011). Alliance naval strategies and Norway in the final years of the cold war. Naval War College Review, 64(2), 97–116.
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, K., Reiss, M., & Einhorn, R. (Eds.). (2004). The nuclear tipping point: Why states reconsider their nuclear choices. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Carpenter, T. (1994). Closing the nuclear umbrella. Foreign Affairs, 73(2), 8–13. doi:10.2307/20045914
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chalmers, M. (2010). Nuclear narratives: Reflections on declaratory policy. London: Royal United Services Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Choi, K., & Park, J.-S. (2008). South Korea: Fears of abandonment and entrapment. In M. Alagappa (Ed.), The long shadow: Nuclear weapons and security in 21^st century Asia (pp. 373–403). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christensen, T. (2011). Worse than a monolith: Alliance politics and problems of coercive diplomacy in Asia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Daalder, I. (1991). The nature and practice of flexible response. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Foradori, P. (2012). Keeping NATO cohesive: The illustrative case of Italy. In H. Chalmers, M. Chalmers, & A. Berger (Eds.), A problem deferred? NATO’s non-strategic nuclear weapons after Chicago (pp. 27–36). London: Royal United Services Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Friedberg, A. (2011). A contest for supremacy: China, America, and the struggle for mastery in Asia. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Frühling, S. (2010). Never say never: Considerations about the possibility of Australia acquiring nuclear weapons. Asian Security, 6, 146–169. doi:10.1080/14799851003756618
   Google Scholar
• Frühling, S. (2013). The fuzzy limits of self-reliance: US extended deterrence and Australian strategic policy. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 67, 18–34. doi:10.1080/10357718.2013.748273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frühling, S. (2016). Managing escalation: Missile defence, strategy and US alliances. International Affairs, 92, 81–95. doi:10.1111/1468-2346.12501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuhrmann, M., & Sechser, T. (2014a). Signalling alliance commitments: Hand-tying and sunk costs in extended nuclear deterrence. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 919–935. doi:10.1111/ajps.12082
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fuhrmann, M., & Sechser, T. (2014b). Nuclear strategy, nonproliferation, and the causes of foreign nuclear deployments. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58, 455–480. doi:10.1177/0022002713509055
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garthoff, R. (1983). The NATO decision on theatre nuclear forces. Political Science Quarterly, 98, 197–214. doi:10.2307/2149415
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gavin, F. (2012). Nuclear statecraft: History and strategy in America’s atomic age. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• German, R. (1982). Norway and the bear: Soviet coercive diplomacy and Norwegian security policy. International Security, 7(2), 55–82. doi:10.2307/2538433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerzhoy, G. (2015). Alliance coercion and nuclear restraint: How the United States thwarted West Germany’s nuclear ambitions. International Security, 39(4), 91–129. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00198
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbons-Neff, T. (2016, March 2). In a rare deployment, B-52 bombers head to Europe for training exercises. The Washington Post.
   Google Scholar
• Hellmann, G., & Wolf, R. (1993). Neorealism, Neoliberal Institutionalism, and the Future of NATO. Security Studies, 3, 3–43. doi:10.1080/09636419309347537
   Google Scholar
• Hemmer, C., & Katzenstein, P. (2002). Why is there no NATO in Asia? Collective identity, regionalism, and the origins of multilateralism. International Organization, 56, 575–607. doi:10.1162/002081802760199890
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jang, S. Y. (2016). The evolution of US extended deterrence and South Korea’s nuclear ambitions. The Journal of Strategic Studies, 39, 502–520. doi:10.1080/01402390.2016.1168012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kamp, K. (2012). NATO’s new nuclear consensus. In H. Chalmers, M. Chalmers, & A. Berger (Eds.), A problem deferred? NATO’s non-strategic nuclear weapons after Chicago (pp. 7–14). London: Royal United Services Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Keohane, R. (1984). After hegemony: Cooperation and discord in the world political economy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kim, T. (2011). Why alliances entangle but seldom entrap states. Security Studies, 20, 350–377. doi:10.1080/09636412.2011.599201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kissinger, H. (1981). For the record: Selected statements, 1977–1980. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Knopf, J. (2010). The fourth wave in deterrence research. Contemporary Security Policy, 31, 1–33. doi:10.1080/13523261003640819
   Google Scholar
• Knopf, J. (Ed.). (2012a). Security assurances and nuclear non-proliferation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Knopf, J. (2012b). Varieties of assurance. The Journal of Strategic Studies, 35, 375–99. doi:10.1080/01402390.2011.643567
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komine, Y. (2013). Okinawa confidential, 1969: Exploring the linkage between the nuclear issue and the base issue. Diplomatic History, 37, 807–840. doi:10.1093/dh/dht039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koremenos, B., Lipson, C., & Snidal, D. (2001). The rational design of international institutions. International Organization, 55, 761–799. doi:10.1162/002081801317193592
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Krasner, S. (1983). Structural causes and regime consequences: Regimes as intervening variables. In S. Krasner (Ed.), International Regimes (pp. 1–22). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kristensen, H. (2009, July 2). Japan, TLAM/N, and extended deterrence. Federation of American Scientists Blog. Retrieved from https://fas.org/blogs/security/2009/07/tlam/
   Google Scholar
• Kroenig, M. (2016, February). The renewed Russian nuclear threat and NATO nuclear deterrent posture. Atlantic Council Issue Brief. Retrieved from http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/images/publications/Russian_Nuclear_Threat_0203_web.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kulesa, Ł. (Ed.). (2012). The future of NATO’s deterrence and defence posture: Views from central Europe. Report of the Polish Institute of International Affairs in partnership with the Nuclear Security Project, Warsaw. Retrieved from https://www.pism.pl/files/?id_plik=12567
   Google Scholar
• Kupchan, C. (1988). NATO and the Persian Gulf: Examining intra-alliance behaviour. International Security, 42, 317–346. doi:10.1017/S0020818300032835
   Google Scholar
• Lanoszka, A. (2014, May). Protection states trust? Major power patronage, nuclear behaviour, and alliance dynamics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
   Google Scholar
• Lundestad, G. (1992). The evolution of Norwegian security policy: Alliance with the West and reassurance in the East. Scandinavian Journal of History, 17, 227–256. doi:10.1080/03468759208579238
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lutsch, A. (2016). Merely “docile self-deception”? German experiences with nuclear consultation in NATO. The Journal of Strategic Studies, 39, 535–558. doi:10.1080/01402390.2016.1168014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McMillan, S. (1987). Neither confirm nor deny: The nuclear ships dispute between New Zealand and the United States. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
   Google Scholar
• O’Neil, A. (2013). Asia, the US and extended nuclear deterrence: Atomic umbrellas in the twenty-first century. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Papayoanou, P. (1997). Intra-alliance bargaining and US Bosnia policy. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41, 91–116. doi:10.1177/0022002797041001005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pilat, J. (2016). A reversal of fortunes? Extended deterrence and assurance in Europe and Asia. Journal of Strategic Studies, 39, 580–591. doi:10.1080/01402390.2016.1168016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posen, B. (1983). Inadvertent nuclear war? Escalation and NATO’s northern flank. In S. Miller & S. Van Evera (Eds.), Naval strategy and national security (pp. 332–358). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization, 42, 427–460. doi:10.1017/S0020818300027697
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pyle, K. (1996). The Japanese question: Power and purpose in a new era. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rafferty, K. (2003). An institutionalist reinterpretation of cold war alliance systems: Insights for alliance theory. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 36, 341–362. doi:10.1017/S0008423903778664
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnik, E. (2010/2011). Strange bedfellows: US bargaining behavior with allies of convenience. International Security, 35(3), 144–184. doi:10.1162/ISEC_a_00026
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roberts, B. (2016). The case for US nuclear weapons in the 21^st century. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rost Rublee, M. (2009). Nonproliferation norms: Why states choose nuclear restraint. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Russett, B. (1988). Extended deterrence with nuclear weapons: How necessary, how acceptable? The Review of Politics, 50, 282–302. doi:10.1017/S0034670500015680
   Google Scholar
• Samuels, R., & Schoff, J. (2015). Japan’s nuclear hedge: Beyond “allergy” and breakout. Political Science Quarterly, 130, 475–503. doi:10.1002/polq.12362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santoro, D., & Warden, J. (2015). Assuring Japan and South Korea in the second nuclear age. The Washington Quarterly, 38(1), 147–165. doi:10.1080/0163660X.2015.1038182
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Satoh, Y. (2014, March 10). Japan’s responsibility sharing for the US extended deterrence. Japan Foreign Policy Forum. Retrieved from http://www.japanpolicyforum.jp/archives/diplomacy/pt20140310010210.html
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, H. (1978). The 1977 Alastair Buchan memorial lecture. Survival, 20, 3–4. doi:10.1080/00396337808441722
   Google Scholar
• Schofield, J. (2014). Strategic nuclear sharing. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Schulte, P. (2012). Tactical nuclear weapons in NATO and beyond: A historical and thematic examination. In T. Nichols, D. Stuart, & J. McCausland (Eds.), Tactical nuclear weapons and NATO (pp. 13–74). Carlisle: USAWC SSI.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartz, D. (1983). NATO’s nuclear dilemmas. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
   Google Scholar
• Sechser, T. (2010). Goliath’s curse: Coercive threats and asymmetric power. International Organization, 64, 627–660. doi:10.1017/S0020818310000214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Skogrand, K., & Tamnes, R. (2001). Fryktens likevekt: Atombomben, Norge og verden 1945–1970. Oslo: Teiden Norsk Forlag.
   Google Scholar
• Snyder, G. (1997). Alliance politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Snyder, S. (2010). South Korean nuclear decision making. In W. Potter & G. Mukhatzhanova (Eds.), Forecasting nuclear proliferation in the 21^st century: A comparative perspective, Vol 2 (pp. 158–181). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Solingen, E. (2010). The perils of prediction: Japan’s once and future nuclear status. In W. Potter & G. Mukhatzhanova (Eds.), Forecasting nuclear proliferation in the 21^st century: A comparative perspective, Vol 2 (pp. 131–157). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon, J., Barnes, J., & Gale, A. (2013, March 29). North Korea warned, US flies stealth bombers over peninsula in show of might. The Wall Street Journal.
   Google Scholar
• Spohr Readman, K. (2011). Conflict and cooperation in intra-alliance nuclear politics: Western Europe, the United States, and the genesis of NATO’s dual-track decision, 1977–1979. Journal of Cold War Studies, 13(2), 39–89. doi:JCWS_a_00137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tanter, R., & Hayes, P. (2011). Beyond the nuclear umbrella: Rethinking the theory and practice of nuclear extended deterrence. Pacific Focus, 26, 5–21. doi:10.1111/j.1976-5118.2011.01053.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thayer, B. (1995). Nuclear weapons as a Faustian bargain. Security Studies, 5(1), 149–163. doi:10.1080/09636419508429255
   Google Scholar
• The Guardian. (2015, December 6). Poland considering asking for access to nuclear weapons under NATO program.
   Google Scholar
• Trachtenberg, D. (2012). US extended deterrence: How much strategic force is too little? Strategic Studies Quarterly, 6(2), 62–92. Retrieved from http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2012/summer/summer12.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Trachtenberg, M. (2012). The Cold War and after: History, theory, and the logic of international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tuschhoff, C. (1999). Alliance cohesion and peaceful change in NATO. In H. Haftendorn, R. Keohane, & C. Wallander (Eds.), Imperfect unions: Security institutions over time and space (pp. 140–161). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tuschhoff, C. (2002). Deutschland, Kernwaffen und die NATO, 1949–1967. Baden: Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft.
   Google Scholar
• US Department of State. (1960, June). Description of consultation arrangements under the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security with Japan. Retrieved from http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb291/doc01.pdf
   Google Scholar
• US Department of State. (2016, October 19). Joint statement of the 2016 United States-Republic of Korea foreign and defense ministers’ meeting. Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2016/10/263340.htm
   Google Scholar
• Walt, S. (1987). The origins of alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Waltz, K. (1979). Theory of international politics. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, W. (2008). The myth of nuclear deterrence. The Nonproliferation Review, 15, 421–439. doi:10.1080/10736700802407101
   Google Scholar
• Yost, D. (2009). Assurance and US extended deterrence in NATO. International Affairs, 85, 755–780. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2009.00826.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yost, D. (2011). The US debate on NATO nuclear deterrence. International Affairs, 87, 1401–1438. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2346.2011.01043.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar