Arms Negotiations, War Exhaustion, and the Credibility of Preventive War

Abstract: Why do some states agree to arms treaties while others fail to come to terms? I argue that the changing credibility of preventive war is an important determinant of arms treaty stability. If preventive war is never an option, states can reach settlements that both prefer to costly arms construction. However, if preventive war is incredible today but will be credible in the future, a commitment problem results: the state considering investment faces a “window of opportunity” and must build the arms or it will not receive concessions later on. Thus, arms treaties fail under these conditions. I then apply the theoretical findings to the Soviet Union’s decision to build nuclear weapons in 1949. War exhaustion made preventive war incredible for the United States immediately following World War II, but lingering concerns about future preventive action forced Moscow to proliferate.

Published in International Interactions.

Download Options: Publisher’s Version, Preprint

3 responses to “Arms Negotiations, War Exhaustion, and the Credibility of Preventive War

  1. Pingback: Welcome! | William Spaniel

  2. Pingback: The Power Shift Myth: Understanding Preventive War | William Spaniel

  3. Pingback: How Long Does It Take to Publish an Academic Book? | William Spaniel

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s