LEADER 04188oam 2200673 a 450 001 9910782072903321 005 20231206223447.0 010 $a1-282-85883-1 010 $a9786612858833 010 $a0-7735-6864-6 024 7 $a10.1515/9780773568648 035 $a(CKB)1000000000521335 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000283046 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11211995 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000283046 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10336475 035 $a(PQKB)10346655 035 $a(CaPaEBR)400152 035 $a(CaBNvSL)gtp00521432 035 $a(VaAlCD)20.500.12592/455v44 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC3331132 035 $a(DE-B1597)655011 035 $a(DE-B1597)9780773568648 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC3245520 035 $a(EXLCZ)991000000000521335 100 $a19991221d2000 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aurcn||||||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aPower versus prudence$b[electronic resource] $ewhy nations forgo nuclear weapons /$fT.V. Paul 210 $aMontreal, Que. $cMcGill-Queen's University Press$dc2000 215 $aviii, 227 p. ;$d24 cm 225 1 $aForeign policy, security and strategic studies 300 $aPublished for the Centre for Security and Foreign Policy Studies and The Teleglobe+Raoul-Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies. 300 $aIncludes index. 311 $a0-7735-2086-4 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references: p. [195]-217. 327 $tFront Matter -- $tContents -- $tAcknowledgments -- $tTheory -- $tIntroduction: Theory and Nuclear Weapons Choices -- $tExplaining Nuclear Forbearance -- $tCase Studies -- $tAligned Major Economic Powers: Germany and Japan -- $tAligned Middle Powers: Canada and Australia -- $tNeutral States: Sweden and Switzerland -- $tNon-Allied States: Argentina and Brazil -- $tNuclear Choices of South Africa, Ukraine, and South Korea -- $tNew Nuclear States: India, Pakistan, and Israel -- $tConclusions -- $tNotes -- $tBibliography -- $tIndex 330 $aIn Power versus Prudence Paul develops a prudential-realist model, arguing that a nation's national nuclear choices depend on specific regional security contexts: the non-great power states most likely to forgo nuclear weapons are those in zones of low and moderate conflict, while nations likely to acquire such capability tend to be in zones of high conflict and engaged in protracted conflicts and enduring rivalries. He demonstrates that the choice to forbear acquiring nuclear weapons is also a function of the extent of security interdependence that states experience with other states, both allies and adversaries. He applies the comparative case study method to pairs of states with similar characteristics - Germany/Japan, Canada/Australia, Sweden/Switzerland, Argentina/Brazil - in addition to analysing the nuclear choices of South Africa, Ukraine, South Korea, India, Pakistan, and Israel. Paul concludes by questioning some of the prevailing supply side approaches to non-proliferation, offering an explication of the security variable by linking nuclear proliferation with protracted conflicts and enduring rivalries. Power versus Prudence will be of interest to students of international relations, policy-makers, policy analysts, and the informed public concerned with the questions of nuclear weapons, non-proliferation, and disarmament. 410 0$aForeign policy, security and strategic studies 606 $aNuclear weapons$xGovernment policy 606 $aNuclear nonproliferation 606 $aSecurity, International 615 0$aNuclear weapons$xGovernment policy. 615 0$aNuclear nonproliferation. 615 0$aSecurity, International. 676 $a327.1/747 700 $aPaul$b T. V$0886926 712 02$aUniversite? du Que?bec a? Montre?al.$bCentre d'e?tudes des politiques e?trange?res et de se?curite?. 712 02$aTeleglobe Raoul-Dandurand Chair of Strategic and Diplomatic Studies. 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910782072903321 996 $aPower versus prudence$93750394 997 $aUNINA