21 st century nuclear deterrence International Relations

In this report we will discuss about International relations and below are the summaries point:- The report aims to present the changes in nuclear deterrence over the years, which has gained new strategies in the 21st century, and its importance in maintaining a country's position in international affairs. Nuclear deterrence is a crucial strategy to prevent war and maintain peaceful relations through arbitrative politics, and it has been adopted by most countries with nuclear power. The United Nations was established after World War II to prevent future wars, but many countries have gained nuclear power due to developments in science and technology. The evolution of nuclear deterrence has been influenced by the Cold War and changes in military and diplomatic strategies between powerful nations, with the need to strengthen security programs due to security threats and terrorism. The use of nuclear weapons has destructive consequences, and powerful countries should use their nuclear power to threaten potential terrorist groups to prevent wars. The report emphasizes the importance of powerful countries, especially the permanent security members of the United Nations, in establishing peace and refraining from nuclear wars.        

Running head: INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
International Relations
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Introduction
The aim of the following report is to present the ideas of the ways how the nuclear
deterrence has changed over the years. In the 21st century it has gained lots of new strategies in
the contemporary times i.e. the 21st century. It is of huge importance to use this in the best ways
so the countries having nuclear power can keep their place in the international matters. This will
be helpful for them because many of their enemies attempt to find ways by which they can make
proper attacks on their adversaries (Miller, 2014).
The main themes and meaning of nuclear deterrence should be clarified at first. This is
one of the most important strategies that would prevent war. In this complicated international
scenario, most of the powerful countries have often opted for using their enemies to terrify and
get their claims (Miller, 2014). Sometimes, situations have worsened and countries have faced
wars against each other even few decades ago. However, the scenario has completely changed
over the times. Almost all the states using nuclear weapons have opted for this strategy so they
can stop war in the international scenario.
The United Nations had been established after the Second World War to make sure that
such world wars would not happen again in the future. Despite that many countries have gained
nuclear power because of their developments in science and technology. Many times it has been
questions if science is a boon or a bane. The answer of that question is still very much debatable.
However, powerful countries fo not intend to participate in wars because it will damage their
human resources and other things as well. In this scenario, nuclear countries often take the
measure of showing their nuclear power and posing them a warning so other powers do not get
engaged in war. Their main purpose is to maintain peaceful relations through arbitrative politics
and making third world countries secure from devastation and damages (Miller, 2014).

2INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Therefore, nuclear deterrence in the 21st century is barely a security measure indeed.
Countries will have to consider the fact that war only destroys the resources and they will have to
take the proper actions for the betterments of the situations regarding conflicts. The powerful
countries have been changing their strategies so they can take the proper measures to stop these
issues (Fuhrmann & Sechser, 2014). In the current scenario, it is very much crucial that all
countries to tighten up their securities to prevent terrorist attacks. In this essay, the changing
strategies of the nuclear deterrence will be discussed properly.
The evolution of nuclear deterrence
Nuclear deterrence is a very widely debated subject all over the world. Mainly the
powerful countries who have strong nuclear weapons at their disposal will look to implement
some strategies so they can stop the wars. After the Second World War, the world has gone
through several changes during different times. One of those periods was the era of cold war.
This cold war did not have any forceful face to face war situation but it depended on the foreign
policies between the two most powerful nations of the world- United States of America (USA)
and United States of Soviet Russia (USSR).
The military strategies taken up by these two most powerful states of the world have
evolved. The diplomatic relationship has worked as the key to maintain peace all over the world.
Many security threats have come up within the last few decades (Fuhrmann & Sechser, 2014). It
has been aggravated especially after 9/11 attacks at New York by Al-Qaeda terrorist group in the
year 2001. Therefore, it has become of huge importance to note that powerful countries will have
to strengthen their security programs with the help of nuclear weapons. The first use of nuclear
bombs by USA on two cities of Japan named Hiroshima and Nagasaki (Payne, 2015).

3INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Therefore, this attack did nothing but destroy the lives of numerous common civilians
due to this bombing (Lieber & Press, 2017). This is why countries must take some measures so
they can ensure they will be able to protect the lives of their common people. In India, many
instances have taken place regarding terrorism as well. In the last decade, many such incidents
have taken place in places like London, Paris, Belgium and other places at Europe including
USA as well. Therefore, it is quite clear that no country is safe from the hands of terrorism
nowadays. The instance of civil wars in countries like Syria is also a very important factor in this
topic (Payne, 2015).
Therefore, it is quite apparent that international politics has become quite a complicated
manner nowadays. Strong and powerful countries should come up to establish peace. The prior
role should be played by United Nations and its permanent security members like United
Kingdom, United States of America, France, Russia and China (United Nations Security
Council). The United Nations has also urged the powerful countries to refrain from nuclear wars
as much as they can. They believe that this world has been created with much toil by people
from various spheres (Lieber & Press, 2017). If nuclear war takes place, it will surely destroy the
lives of millions of people. Therefore, all these countries should be using their nuclear power to
threaten the potential terrorist groups to stop the wars (Russett, 2015).
Strategic thinking to stop wars
Nuclear deterrence has become a very crucial phenomenon in the current times because
countries make some strategies that are not limited to making strategies or strategic thinking, So,
proper strategies will have to be made by the countries and their diplomatic leaders so they can
clarify their purposes and progress towards their goal. Political factors are very much important

4INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
in this scenario (Russett, 2015). The countries and their defense ministers should think of some
ways with collaboration that will cater to the needs of the moment. One important part to employ
the nuclear deterrence strategies based on the reports of respective intelligence bureaus. Power is
a very crucial factor in this paper for a proper understanding of taking the proper measures. Once
the countries get to know of probable upcoming conditions in the international scenario, they
will thrive to make their proper strategies regarding the using of nuclear weapons (Holmes,
2016).
The art of creating power should be managed by the countries in the complicated political
scenario. They must understand the balance of power and mix it with the art of creation. Only
then they can take some successful measures indeed. When powerful countries realize they have
been cornered by their adversaries by the use of proper strategies, they must make sure that they
are able to make the most of using forceful strategies other than the diplomatic ideas. They must
be able to implement some strategies that will surely be helpful for them like military maneuvers
and tactics for gaining back their territories (Holmes, 2016). This factor is basically not some
violence i.e. being used in a random manner. The usage of organized force strategies will be
helpful for those countries to insert their power in the best ways. Most times most necessary
information is manipulated by some forces in the current times (Bringsjord et al. 2014).
Therefore, this needs to change the strategies and tactics of the forces by psychological strategies
being put to use.
Sometimes, political issues have been dealt with proper measures in this changing
scenario. United Nations is the institution where the countries have to abide by the rules set for
maintaining international peace. The use of these organized forces is not influenced by the use of
political forces indeed. The security of the nations should be widened properly so they can gain

5INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
the better outcomes in mitigating the conflicts between several nations. The changing
perspectives of nuclear deterrence have been somewhat influenced by the globalization as well.
The incident of 9/11 attacks can be presented in this section because it was a slap from the side
of terrorist groups who showed that probably the most powerful nation in the world United
States had some defects in their security arrangements. In some countries, domestic violence has
been regarded as one of the most intriguing prospects. Therefore, they will have to deal with
their domestic problems as well (Bringsjord et al. 2014). According to the critics, it will be
effective for these countries to implement strategies for the use of these nuclear weapons. In this
scenario, it will be beneficial for the readers to divide the timeline into three sections to
understand the impact of nuclear deterrence. These time sections are:- period during cold war,
period after cold war or post-cold war or period after 9/11 (Ven Bruusgaard, 2016).
The evolution of nuclear deterrence
Nuclear deterrence has always been an important matter to be discussed by the parties
involved in conflicts. When some countries get involved in war situations, it is very important
that they should be dissuaded by the threat of war or use of nuclear weapons. The beginning of
nuclear deterrence strategies generally came to use during the times of World War II. The
execution of nuclear weapons had been could be seen during the end of World War II on Japan
as has been discussed previously (Ven Bruusgaard, 2016). Therefore, it is of utmost importance
that cities must be protected from being bombed by air strikes. This has to be done with strict
measures otherwise there will be nothing but darkness for the countries. In this manner, it will be
very important to note that countries that might attack their enemies should be known
beforehand. Then only they would be able to take some positive actions indeed.

6INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
During the cold war, both USA and Soviet Russia had built upon a stack of nuclear
weapons that had something to do with their individual prowess in terms of international
relations. Therefore, it would be very much important to note that both the countries wanted to
make their strategies very clear so they will need to make the things stand as they threatened
each other for wars (Adamsky, 2014). Though the face to face war never took place, the
international relations between those countries had completely deteriorated. The Soviet leaders
were pretty sure that their nuclear weapons would be enough to fight the battle and win it. Then
the United States took the position of nuclear deterrence. They threatened that they too, would
use their nuclear weapons to stop the enemy attacks. They will surely retaliate if Soviet attacked
them. This was the beginning of the nuclear deterrence amidst the cold war situations. In the
1950s, United States had deployed some strategies that would surely put the Soviet Union to
think about their steps.
United States developed some mechanisms and improved their delivery systems to put
USSR under severe pressure (Adamsky, 2014). The delivery systems of Soviet Union will surely
be a strong weapon to retaliate against the probable Soviet attacks. This situation emerged from
the occasion when soldiers of both USA and USSR celebrated their victory over the Nazi
dominance in old Europe of Hitler. It is quite an interesting fact that USA builds three such
systems where they could really give tough competition to the Soviet Nation. Those three
systems were long-range manned aircrafts that will carry nuclear weapons for total destruction of
Russia, intercontinental ballistic missiles that would have a long range effect. This would contain
nuclear warheads (Snyder, 2015). The third system was that of the submarines with nuclear
power and having the power to carry nuclear ballistic missiles. These systems were really some

7INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
frightening things for the USSR indeed. All these systems became the parts of the Strategic
Triad.
They would really be very powerful enough indeed. These weapons were so deadly and
strong that they could deter the Soviet attacks (Shearman, 2017). It was quite clear from the
strategists that no power in the world would be able to deal with destroying all the three weapons
at the same time. This marked the fact that United States was quite safe by deterring these three
weapons. So, this Strategic Triad seemed to be invincible indeed (Snyder, 2015). Thus the
nuclear deterrence methods during the cold war period seemed to be quite a strong one. This
scenario has changed quite a lot in the current times.
The use of nuclear deterrence in the post cold war deterrence was quite convincing as
well. Therefore, it was quite interesting to see the deployment of the nuclear weapons to protect
the lives of the common people (Denning, 2015). The nuclear deterrence policies have been quite
interesting in this period since they were mostly conventional. After the cold war, Soviet Union
had collapsed and it broke into several small counties (Betts, 2014). It was without a shadow of a
doubt that United States acquired a great power in the international sphere. So, they had the
supreme power in their hands to control the world. The development of new technologies almost
made it possible to deploy nuclear strategies for nuclear deterrence with the help of weapons and
use of the conventional forces. Therefore, many significant developments had been made after
the cold war in terms of technology (Denning, 2015).
So, it was quite possible to make the things happen indeed,. Some of the areas in which
technology had catered to are accuracy, support for information, stealth and intelligence. The
conventional theories of deterrence were not that much fearful or deadly like the nuclear

8INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
weapons (Sands, Camacho & Mihalik, 2017). The case is similar to the use of nuclear weapons
than those conventional weapons. Apparently, these nuclear weapons were more deadly and they
were more accuracy. The users of these weapons were able to collect the needed information for
those potential attacks (Palmer, 2015). The Air strikes or air campaigns are mostly regarded as
one of the most fearful methods of using nuclear weapons. This suggests the aggression of the
human beings. On the other hand, it also suggests the fact that soldiers will use this technology
based nuclear weapons for better results. Some instances can be given in this case. One is that of
air strike by United States on Libya and another is of the United States aggression on the civil
infrastructures of Iraq (Sands, Camacho & Mihalik, 2017).
Some critics and weapon experts have said that the use of conventional weapons used by
different countries has been improved a lot by the use of technology during the period after the
cold war (Heisbourg, 2015). Therefore, it is quite evident that many natural phenomenon are
associated with it as well. One of the basic problems regarding this issue is natural disasters like
desert storm will be barrier to use these conventional weapons. The use of these conventional
weapons would have to be done very carefully indeed. Then only they could get the work done
with a proper logistical and political support (Rajesh, 2014).
So, political support is deemed as a very important factor for the use of conventional
nuclear weapons. Apart from USA, some non-Western countries have also adopted this strategy
of the nuclear deterrence in their own ways. This has been quite successful as well. Therefore,
nuclear deterrence might be a probable difficulty for terrorist leaders like Saddam Hussein of
Iraq. Later in the 1990s, he had denied to use his chemical weapons against United States and
their friend nations (Wirsing, 2016). He understood that there would be large scale retaliations

9INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
from United States. Thus, the nuclear deterrence has been shaped after the cold war with the help
of technology (Fihn, 2017).
The use of the conventional deterrent powers has not been done in the previous years and
nobody is sure that this can be approached with its full force like that of nuclear deterrence
program (Wirsing, 2016). So, countries must engage in using these nuclear weapons will have to
make use of these things for the utmost benefit of the states. Arguably United States has not
shown any interest in configuring the power of Europe and Asia. The main barrier that comes in
this program is that of the geographical issues (Broad & Sanger, 2016). United States is far away
from European and Asian countries. Therefore, it will require a very strong power projection for
them to investigate into this matter. The fact of conventional deterrence has also faced some
problems in the past as well (Grand, 2016). Therefore, it is projected not so important like the
powers of the nuclear deterrence. After the cold war at the end of the 21st century, superiority in
the use of technology is very much required in this scenario. Therefore, it will be highly
important to note that standing force structure should also have been developed for the
development of the nuclear deterrence. The deterrence programs should be made successful by
the virtue of these technologies. So, they will have to work on many costly, large, capable and
complex structures (Rabinowitz, 2014).
One important concern in this situation is the fact that proper nuclear disarmament will
not be possible every time. It is because the eradication of nuclear weapons cannot be done. It is
also a fact that many countries use their nuclear weapons for their self-defense only. Therefore,
they look to hide their nuclear weapons and they can intervene in the difficult situations in the
international relations as well. Therefore, it is quite difficult to show that the nuclear weapons
will actually exist in their arsenal (Grand, 2016). The development of these nuclear weapons has

10INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
also been a matter of concern in the period after the cold war. It is quite important to note that
United States has opted to stand alone against the face offs against small power nations indeed.
Therefore, it could result in the mass destruction with the use of several nuclear weapons (Bleek
& Lorber, 2014).
During the times after the cold war, it was reported by some experts that United States
moved towards nuclear disarmament. This could result in the proliferation of the nuclear
weapons around the world. Another important issue that might be highlighted in this issue is that
of the nuclear disarmament by the rogue states or small states that hide under the shelters of
powerful states having nuclear weapons (Powers, 2015). The use of the nuclear weapons in the
Gulf war was a great lesson for all the countries and their leaders. It showed the fact that nuclear
weapons might be very much necessary on the background of protecting one’s own from the
recurrent violent attacks. As the international warfare strategies have complicated in the current
times, turmoil can be created in this scenario and this would surely need the intervention of the
strong states like United States, Russia and others. Many historic changes have taken place over
the years and this has catered to the change of strategic interpretations regarding the use of the
nuclear weapons (Powers, 2015). As situations are worsening in the current times and there are
uncertainties all over, it will be very problematic to eradicate the use of nuclear weapons
completely. Thus the up gradation of nuclear powers from the conventional powers will be a
matter of special focus indeed (Fuhrmann & Sechser, 2014).
In this section, the evolution of nuclear deterrence will be discussed after the 9/11 attacks.
This terrorist attack in the heart of United States was a potential game changer in terms of
security threats that could be posed to the states (Rupp, 2016). The destruction of the twin towers
was a very important event in the timeline of the United States history. Therefore, countries

11INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
focused on increasing their securities during the later times. In 2010, President Barrack Obama
confessed that nuclear weapons in the hands of the terrorists would simply blow up the major
cities in the world (Fuhrmann & Sechser, 2014).
Therefore, a shift in the development of the nuclear weapons was needed very badly
indeed. The terrorists had acquired a huge strength that allowed them to commit such a horrific
attack (Collins, 2016). The issue of nuclear deterrence became a hot topic in the coming times.
Therefore, different nations got united in meetings and took a step to consolidate nuclear
deterrence programs throughout the world (Shultz & Goodby, 2015). To the United States, the
challenge from the terrorists groups proved to be a major threat than those posed by Russians.
Therefore, the situation got worsened indeed and United States wanted to use the nuclear
weapons to blow up the terrorist groups from the world. However, the policy makers in USA
attempted to cut down the amount of nuclear weapons from the arsenal of United States (Dalby,
2016).
Probably this would be highly significant indeed. This will surely be effective for dealing
with potential security threats that were on the US forces already. Therefore, the role of the
nuclear weapons also got diminished indeed (Shultz & Goodby, 2015). The improvements
should have been done to develop the chances of United States to make proper strategies to
combat against these terrorist attacks. Some critics are of the opinion that United States wanted
to sustain the limits of using the nuclear weapons to hold their good reputation in front of other
countries and United Nations (Durkalec & Kroenig, 2016).
Many new strategies were taken up by the United States to look into the issues like
nuclear proliferation, issues regarding arms control, making new policies and determining

12INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
nuclear strategies (Cimbala & McDermott, 2015). These issues will be of serious importance
since it involved the general security of the entire world. Every effort that United States made
will be intertwined with their views about the nuclear proliferation around the globe by other
countries. United States has come to realize their potential threats from the non-state terrorist
actors since this will be one of the most prolific things. New challenges have come up regarding
nuclear deterrence by United States and other countries (Durkalec & Kroenig, 2016).
Countries like United Kingdom have also been involved in this scenario. This is due to
two reasons. One is the fact that United Kingdom is one of the permanent members of the United
Nations Security Council. The second fact is regarding the issue that United Kingdom has also
been the victims of non-state terrorist attacks (Von Hlatky & Wenger, 2015). Therefore, they
have also understood the importance of the nuclear deterrence in the world after 9/11. Countries
like United States and United Kingdom believe that the act of nuclear deterrence is much better
than fighting (Cimbala, 2014). They do have the power and capability of fighting against the
terrorists. Probably they will win as well. However, this will cause in a lot of damage to them
regarding the loss of lives and loss of money, food and other resources (Cimbala, 2014). So, it
will be better of they can show their nuclear power and threat the terrorists from beginning the
war. In this scenario, the difference between nuclear deterrence, offence and defense can be
shown. Nuclear deterrence is a strategy by which war can be stopped before it has already begun.
Offence means to attack and defense means to protect after the first attack is made (Von Hlatky
& Wenger, 2015). Nowadays, powerful countries like USA, UK, Russia and others use their
military attacks to confront against those terrorists. Thus they expect terrorists will refrain from
their attacks and stay back. On the contrary, this is not always the case indeed. They think it will
really be a very problematic factor for the common people of the country (Kristensen & Norris,

13INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
2015). In India nuclear testing has also taken place at Pokhran in Rajasthan in the ending years of
the previous century. It is prevalent due to the rising threats from their potential threats Pakistan.
There are some distinct things that can be ascribed to the nuclear weapons in the current
times. The satellites placed in the space will catch the images of nuclear blasts. The pressure
waves created because of nuclear blasts can be felt in the 21st century due to the scientific
advancement (Kristensen & Norris, 2015). One more thing that can be said in this issue of
nuclear deterrence is the fact that making of nuclear weapons is a very costly measure. It takes a
lot of money to prepare nuclear weapons (Lebow, 2016). Ethically it should only be used to
make the terrorist groups afraid that they will not give up a single inch of land without
retaliation. A proper developed scientific infrastructure is also very much needed to make sure
that these nuclear weapons are in the right hands (Reiter, 2014).
Therefore, the countries in the 21st century should focus on their own power and balance
of power. This is extremely important from a lot of viewpoints. The countries have recently have
taken initiatives for joint and collaborative action (Lebow, 2016). This has increased the chances
of making better responses to non state terrorist attacks. Terrorism will gain new means of
significance through the use of nuclear powers in the world. If the countries do not take
collective action against these non state terrorist actors, this might cause mass destruction by the
use of domestic airlines facilities (Reiter, 2014).
In the current scenario, the issue of deterrence has come to limelight again after
dominating these non state actors. The main purpose should obviously be on reinstating peace in
the world (Cimbala & McDermott, 2015). It has been recognized that deterrence is not just based
on nuclear strategies. Therefore, some steps should be taken to curb down the emergence of

14INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
these actors indeed. The emergence of technology has come up to the forefront regarding the use
of robotic warfare and cyber security. Confidential information should be secured through the
tightening of cyber security. Apart from that, robotic warfare is deemed as very important but
costly. Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, Jaish-e-Muhammad, ISIS and others should be contained
if peace has to be restored in the world.
Conclusion
This essay can be concluded by saying nuclear deterrence has been regarded as one of the
most useful strategies in the world to prevent the wars. In the current political situation full of
complications and turmoil, it is very crucial to stop the wars to save the human resources.
Otherwise, mass destruction will take place and finally result in the worst of the situations. This
is why war strategists have planned some ways of nuclear deterrence so they can stop both state
and non state actors in this situation. The fact of nuclear deterrence has gone through several
evolutions over years and decades. It has learned from the essay that nuclear deterrence can be
divided into three sections i.e. cold war era, post cold war era and era after 9/11 attacks.
Therefore, the impacts of these strategies taken at different times by powerful countries, mostly
United States of America have been discussed, Apart from USA, other countries like UK and
Russia have also taken up their nuclear deterrence strategies as well. It is of utmost importance
that all these things should be taken care to prevent the war situations with the non state actors
like terrorists. It is because terrorists have come up as the recent threats for the security of the big
and powerful countries.

15INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Reference List
Adamsky, D. (2014). If War Comes Tomorrow: Russian Thinking About ‘Regional Nuclear
Deterrence’. The journal of Slavic military studies, 27(1), 163-188.
Betts, R. K. (2014). Pick Your Battles: Ending America's Era of Permanent War. Foreign
Aff., 93, 15.
Bleek, P. C., & Lorber, E. B. (2014). Security guarantees and allied nuclear
proliferation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(3), 429-454.
Bringsjord, S., Govindarajulu, N. S., Ellis, S., McCarty, E., & Licato, J. (2014). Nuclear
deterrence and the logic of deliberative mindreading. Cognitive Systems Research, 28,
20-43.
Broad, W. J., & Sanger, D. E. (2016). As US modernizes nuclear weapons,‘smaller’leaves some
uneasy. The New York Times, 11.
Cimbala, S. J. (2014). Nuclear deterrence and cyber: the quest for concept. Air & Space Power
Journal, 28(2), 87.
Cimbala, S. J. (2014). US military strategy and the Cold War endgame. Routledge.
Cimbala, S. J., & McDermott, R. N. (2015). A New Cold War? Missile Defenses, Nuclear Arms
Reductions, and Cyber War. Comparative strategy, 34(1), 95-111.
Collins, A. (Ed.). (2016). Contemporary security studies. Oxford university press.
Dalby, S. (2016). Creating the second cold war: The discourse of politics. Bloomsbury
Publishing.

16INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Denning, D. E. (2015). Rethinking the cyber domain and deterrence.
Durkalec, J., & Kroenig, M. (2016). NATO’s nuclear deterrence: Closing credibility gaps. The
Polish Quarterly of International Affairs, 12(1), 37-50.
Fihn, B. (2017). The logic of banning nuclear weapons. Survival, 59(1), 43-50.
Fuhrmann, M., & Sechser, T. S. (2014). Nuclear strategy, nonproliferation, and the causes of
foreign nuclear deployments. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 58(3), 455-480.
Fuhrmann, M., & Sechser, T. S. (2014). Signaling Alliance Commitments: Hand‐Tying and
Sunk Costs in Extended Nuclear Deterrence. American Journal of Political
Science, 58(4), 919-935.
Grand, C. (2016). Nuclear deterrence and the Alliance in the 21. century.
Heisbourg, F. (2015). Preserving Post-Cold War Europe. Survival, 57(1), 31-48.
Holmes, J. R. (2016). Sea changes: The future of nuclear deterrence. Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 72(4), 228-233.
Kristensen, H. M., & Norris, R. S. (2015). Indian nuclear forces, 2015. Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 71(5), 77-83.
Lebow, R. N. (2016). Deterrence: a political and psychological critique. In Richard Ned Lebow:
Key Texts in Political Psychology and International Relations Theory (pp. 3-24).
Springer, Cham.
Lieber, K. A., & Press, D. G. (2017). The new era of counterforce: Technological change and the
future of nuclear deterrence. International Security, 41(4), 9-49.

17INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Miller, S. E. (2014). Strategy and nuclear deterrence. Princeton University Press.
Palmer, D. A. R. (2015). Back to the Future?: Russia's Hybrid Warfare, Revolutions in Military
Affairs, and Cold War Comparisons. NATO Defense College, Research Division.
Payne, K. B. (2015). Deterrence in the second nuclear age. University Press of Kentucky.
Powers, G. (2015). From Nuclear Deterrence to Disarmament: Evolving Catholic
Perspectives. Arms Control Today, 45(4), 8-13.
Rabinowitz, O. (2014). Bargaining on nuclear tests: washington and its Cold War deals. Oxford
University Press.
Rajesh, B. (2014). Nuclear deterrence: the Wohlstetter Blackett debate re-visited.
Reiter, D. (2014). Security commitments and nuclear proliferation. Foreign Policy
Analysis, 10(1), 61-80.
Rupp, R. (2016). NATO after 9/11: an alliance in continuing decline. Springer.
Russett, B. M. (2015). Ethical dilemmas of nuclear deterrence. In Bruce M. Russett: Pioneer in
the Scientific and Normative Study of War, Peace, and Policy (pp. 153-168). Springer,
Cham.
Sands, T., Camacho, H., & Mihalik, R. (2017). Education in nuclear deterrence and assurance. J.
Def. Manag, 7, 166.
Shearman, P. (2017). Reconceptualizing Security After 9/11. In European Security After
9/11 (pp. 21-37). Routledge.

18INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Shultz, G. P., & Goodby, J. E. (Eds.). (2015). The War that Must Never be Fought: Dilemmas of
Nuclear Deterrence. Hoover Press.
Snyder, G. H. (2015). Deterrence and defense (Vol. 2168). Princeton University Press.
Ven Bruusgaard, K. (2016). Russian strategic deterrence. Survival, 58(4), 7-26.
Von Hlatky, S., & Wenger, A. (Eds.). (2015). The future of extended deterrence: The United
States, NATO, and beyond. Georgetown University Press.
Wirsing, R. G. (2016). Kashmir in the shadow of war: Regional rivalries in a nuclear age.
Routledge.