Gas, norms, and statistics: the jury is still out

Abstract

2 KAC set their threshold for inclusion at Level 3, or "some major violations." But of the 222 dyads, Morrow and Jo code 173 as Level 1, or "no violations at all." Three are Level 2, or "minor violations." Nine are Level 3, and twenty are Level 4, or "many violations such that compliance doesn't matter." Seventeen were undetermined due to missing data.

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

“…Aversion to the use of chemical weapons after the First World War has been similarly the subject of scholarly inquiry; as noted in a famous study of the history of violence, “it’s not immediately obvious why, out of all the weapons of war, poison gas was singled out as uniquely abominable—as so uncivilized that even the Nazis kept it off the battlefield” (Pinker, 2011: 274). Rationalist explanations primarily focus on the limited military utility of chemical agents and the logic of mutual deterrence (Ellis and Moon, 1984; Krause, 1991; Martin, 2004a; Martin, 2016; Chapman, Elbahtimy and Martin, 2018; Allison and Herzog, 2019). In contrast, genealogical explanations highlight the gradual emergence and institutionalization of the international norm against chemical weapon-use in world politics (Price, 1995, 1997; Bentley, 2013, 2014; Jefferson, 2014; Kovačević, Afrimadona and Claar, 2019).…”

“…It is worth noting that rationalist explanations of the nonuse of chemical weapons in world politics do focus on a rather limited military utility of chemical agents (e.g. Krause, 1991; Martin, 2004a; Martin, 2016; Chapman, Elbahtimy and Martin, 2018; Allison and Herzog, 2019). The seminal work of Press, Sagan, and Valentino (2013) similarly supports the idea that individuals tend to prefer the use of nuclear weapons more when they find them to be more effective than conventional weapons in the given scenario, while Sagan and Valentino (2018) found that the public willingness to inflict collateral damage is positively associated with the military advantage of the attack.…”