The causes and consequences of nuclear proliferation have received a great deal of academic attention. However, nuclear weapons are rarely discussed in isolation in policy circles. Instead, nuclear weapons are relevant as part of a category of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) that includes chemical and biological weapons (CBWs). Are the factors that drive CBWs proliferation similar to those that drive nuclear proliferation? What is the relationship between these weapons types? In this article, we explore whether nuclear weapons and CBWs serve as complements or substitutes. Using newly collected data on both CBWs pursuit and possession over time, we find that nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons generally function as complements at the pursuit stage. In addition, countries that acquire nuclear weapons become less interested in pursuing other types of WMDs and are even willing to give them up in some cases.
AchenChristopher H.2005. “Let’s Put Garbage-can Regressions and Garbage-can Probits Where They Belong.”Conflict Management and Peace Science22 (4): 327–39.
2.
AngristJoshua D.PischkeJörn-Steffen. Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion. Princeton University Press.
3.
BanksArthur S.2005. Cross-national Time-series Data Archive. Jerusalem: Databanks International.
4.
British Broadcasting Company. 1998. “Anthrax: A Deadly Bacterium.”BBC News, March 24, Accessed March 24, 1998. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/69003.stm.
5.
BrodieBernardSherwood DunnFrederickWolfersArnoldEllwood CorbettPercyRickert FoxWilliam Thornton. 1946. The absolute weapon: Atomic power and world order. New York: Harcourt.
6.
BrownRobert L.KaplowJeffrey M.. 2014. “Talking Peace, Making Weapons: IAEA Technical Cooperation and Nuclear Proliferation.”Journal of Conflict Resolution58 (3): 402–28.
7.
BurckGordon M.FlowerreeCharles C.. 1991. International Handbook on Chemical Weapons Proliferation. New York: Greenwood Press.
8.
BleekPhilipp C.LorberEric B.. 2014. “Security Guarantees and Allied Nuclear Proliferation.”Journal of Conflict Resolution58 (3): 429–54.
9.
CarusW. Seth. 1991. The Poor Man’s Atomic Bomb?: Biological Weapons in the Middle East. Washington, DC: Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
10.
Center for Nonproliferation Studies. 2012. Chemical and Biological Weapons: Possession and Programs Past and Present. Center for Nonproliferation Studies, March 2008. Accessed March 24, 2012. http://cns.miis.edu/cbw/possess.htm.
11.
CigarNorman. 2011. “Saddam Hussein’s Nuclear Vision: An Atomic Shield and Sword for Conquest.”Middle East Studies Occasional Paper (1).
12.
Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. 1972. Accessed March 24, 2012. http://www.opbw.org/convention/documents/btwctext.pdf.
13.
CordesmanAnthony H.2001. Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Global Nuclear Balance: A Quantitative and Arms Control Analysis. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
14.
EinhornRobertFlournoyMichele. 2003. Protecting against the Spread of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons: An Action Agenda for the Global Partnership. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies.
15.
FuhrmannMatthewSechserTodd S.. 2014. “Nuclear Strategy, Nonproliferation, and the Causes of Foreign Nuclear Deployments.”Journal of Conflict Resolution58 (3): 455–80.
16.
GartzkeErikKaplowJeffrey M.MehtaRupal N.. 2014. “The Determinants of Nuclear Force Structure.”Journal of Conflict Resolution58 (3): 481–508.
17.
GartzkeErikKroenigMatthew. 2009. “A Strategic Approach to Nuclear Proliferation.”Journal of Conflict Resolution53 (2): 151–60.
18.
GelmanAndrew. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press.
19.
HammondJames W.Jr. 1999. Poison Gas: The Myths versus Reality. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
20.
HorowitzMichael. 2009. “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons and International Conflict Does Experience Matter?.”Journal of Conflict Resolution53 (2): 234-257.
21.
HorowitzMichael C.2004. Assessing the Empirical Impact of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Proliferation on International Security. Montreal, Canada: Prepared for the Annual Meeting of the International Studies Association.
22.
JervisRobert. 1989. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
23.
JoDong-JoonGartzkeErik. 2007. “Determinants of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation.”Journal of Conflict Resolution51 (1): 167.
24.
KarpAaron. 1996. Ballistic Missile Proliferation: The politics and Technics. New York: Oxford University Press.
25.
KerrPaul K.2008. Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons and Missiles: Status and Trends. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
26.
LegroJeffrey. 1995. Cooperation under Fire: Anglo-German Restraint during World War II. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
27.
MartinSusan B.SaganScott D.. 2001. “Responding to Chemical and Biological Threats.”International Security25 (4): 193–98.
28.
MartinezIan. 2002. “The History of the Use of Bacteriological and Chemical Agents during Zimbabwe’s Liberation War of 1965-80 by Rhodesian Forces.”Third World Quarterly23 (6): 1159–78.
29.
KroenigMatthew. In press. “U.S. Nuclear Weapons and Nonproliferation: Is There a Link?”Journal of Conflict Resolution.
30.
MauroniAlbert J.2003. Chemical and Biological Warfare: A Reference Handbook. Denver, CO: ABC-CLIO.
31.
MoodieMichael. 2001. “The Soviet Union, Russia, and the biological and toxin weapons convention.”The Nonproliferation Review8 (1): 59-69.
32.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1993. Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the Risks: OTA-ISC-559. Office of Technology Assessment. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
33.
PanofskyWolfgang. 1998. “Dismantling the Concept of Weapons of Mass Destruction.”Arms Control Today28:3–8.
34.
SaganScott D.2000. “The Commitment Trap: Why the United States Should Not Use Nuclear Threats to Deter Biological and Chemical Weapons Attacks.”International Security24 (4): 85–115.
35.
SinghSonaliWayChristopher R.. 2004. “The Correlates of Nuclear Proliferation—A Quantitative Test.”Journal of Conflict Resolution48 (6): 859–85.
36.
SmithJames A., ed.2000. Search for National Security in an NBC World. Colorado Springs, CO: USAF Institute for National Security Studies, US Air Force Academy.
37.
SpiersEdward M.1994. Chemical and Biological Weapons: A Study of Proliferation. London: Macmillan Press.
38.
SteinbrunnerJohn D. 1997–1998. “Biological Weapons: A Plague upon All Houses.”Foreign Policy109: 85–96.
39.
StinnettDouglas M.TirJaroslavDiehlPaul F.SchaferPhilipGochmanCharles. 2002. “The Correlates of War (COW) Project Direct Contiguity Data, Version 3.0.”Conflict Management and Peace Science19 (2): 59–67.
40.
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. 1973. The Problem of Chemical and Biological Warfare; a Study of the Historical, Technical, Military, Legal and Political Aspects of CBW, and Possible Disarmament Measures. Vol. I. New York: Humanities Press.
41.
TuckerDavid. 2001. “What’s New about the New Terrorism and How Dangerous Is It?”Terrorism & Political Violence13 (3): 1–14.
42.
WayChristopher R.WeeksJessica. 2012. “Making It Personal: Regime Type and Nuclear Proliferation.”Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
43.
ZelicoffAlan P.2001. “An Impractical Protocol.”Arms Control Today31 (4): 25–27.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
