Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

The impact of nuclear weapons on strategic stability is not well-understood. The existing international relations and conflict resolution scholarship pertaining to nuclear weapons generally focuses on nuclear proliferation, deterrence, how nuclear weapons are operationalized, and measures of conflict such as the likelihood of conflict. This article analyzes the impact of nuclear weapons on post-conflict regional stability. The results of the analysis suggest that post-conflict regional stability is more likely to be achieved when conflict occurs with nuclear weapon states than with non-nuclear weapon states. However, externalities such as alliances and balance of power influence the findings.

I support this claim by first constructing a composite index to establish a quantifiable measure of post-conflict regional stability. Second, I use a quasi-experimental research design with nonequivalent control groups to analyze post-conflict regional stability among two groups: the treatment group which experienced conflict with nuclear weapon states and the nonequivalent control group that experienced conflict with non-nuclear weapon states. Third, I analyze the results to identify and better understand the factors that influence post-conflict regional stability.

This article contributes to the literature by filling a gap in our understanding of nuclear weapons by establishing a quantifiable measure of strategic stability and analyzing the impact of nuclear weapons on post-conflict regional stability. This research informs policymakers about how to manage nuclear weapons, including their risks, advantages, disadvantages, and their role in the international community. It also serves to inform policymakers about externalities involving international relations and their relationship with nuclear weapons policy and post-conflict regional stability.