04188oam 2200673 a 450 991078207290332120231206223447.01-282-85883-197866128588330-7735-6864-610.1515/9780773568648(CKB)1000000000521335(SSID)ssj0000283046(PQKBManifestationID)11211995(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000283046(PQKBWorkID)10336475(PQKB)10346655(CaPaEBR)400152(CaBNvSL)gtp00521432 (VaAlCD)20.500.12592/455v44(MiAaPQ)EBC3331132(DE-B1597)655011(DE-B1597)9780773568648(MiAaPQ)EBC3245520(EXLCZ)99100000000052133519991221d2000 uy 0engurcn|||||||||txtccrPower versus prudence[electronic resource] why nations forgo nuclear weapons /T.V. PaulMontreal, Que. McGill-Queen's University Pressc2000viii, 227 p. ;24 cmForeign policy, security and strategic studiesPublished for the Centre for Security and Foreign Policy Studies and The Teleglobe+Raoul-Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies.Includes index.0-7735-2086-4 Includes bibliographical references: p. [195]-217.Front Matter -- Contents -- Acknowledgments -- Theory -- Introduction: Theory and Nuclear Weapons Choices -- Explaining Nuclear Forbearance -- Case Studies -- Aligned Major Economic Powers: Germany and Japan -- Aligned Middle Powers: Canada and Australia -- Neutral States: Sweden and Switzerland -- Non-Allied States: Argentina and Brazil -- Nuclear Choices of South Africa, Ukraine, and South Korea -- New Nuclear States: India, Pakistan, and Israel -- Conclusions -- Notes -- Bibliography -- IndexIn Power versus Prudence Paul develops a prudential-realist model, arguing that a nation's national nuclear choices depend on specific regional security contexts: the non-great power states most likely to forgo nuclear weapons are those in zones of low and moderate conflict, while nations likely to acquire such capability tend to be in zones of high conflict and engaged in protracted conflicts and enduring rivalries. He demonstrates that the choice to forbear acquiring nuclear weapons is also a function of the extent of security interdependence that states experience with other states, both allies and adversaries. He applies the comparative case study method to pairs of states with similar characteristics - Germany/Japan, Canada/Australia, Sweden/Switzerland, Argentina/Brazil - in addition to analysing the nuclear choices of South Africa, Ukraine, South Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel. Paul concludes by questioning some of the prevailing supply side approaches to non-proliferation, offering an explication of the security variable by linking nuclear proliferation with protracted conflicts and enduring rivalries. Power versus Prudence will be of interest to students of international relations, policy-makers, policy analysts, and the informed public concerned with the questions of nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, and disarmament.Foreign policy, security and strategic studiesNuclear weaponsGovernment policyNuclear nonproliferationSecurity, InternationalNuclear weaponsGovernment policy.Nuclear nonproliferation.Security, International.327.1/747Paul T. V886926Université du Québec à Montréal.Centre d'études des politiques étrangères et de sécurité.Teleglobe Raoul-Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies.MiAaPQMiAaPQMiAaPQBOOK9910782072903321Power versus prudence3750394UNINA