The following analyses appears in Volume 4, Issue 1 of the Peace Science Digest. Citation: Johns, R., & Davies, G. A. (2019). Civilian casualties and public support for military action: Experimental evidence.Journal of Conflict Resolution, 63(1), 251–281. Key Words: Military intervention,
The following analysis is from Volume 3, Issue 3 of the Peace Science Digest. Citation: Basham, V.M. (2018). Liberal militarism as insecurity, desire and ambivalence: Gender, race and the everyday geopolitics of war. Security Dialogue, 49(1-2), 32-43. War is usually
In the wake of the U.S. abandoning the Iran Nuclear Deal and the growing tension between Israel, Iran, and the U.S., we must be wary of foreign policy saber-rattling in the context of “rallying around the flag”.
On May 8th, 2018, the U.S. pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal. The Trump administration claims the deal is unfair and leaves plenty of opportunities for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon--a claim all other parties to the deal disagree with.
A large U.S. troop presence can be an effective tool in deterring war, but often provokes militarized activities short of war.
This analysis is from Volume 3, Issue 1 of the Peace Science Digest When do people support war, when do they support diplomacy? In this study, the authors examined if and how the framing of questions impacts how the public supports
This analysis is from Volume 3, Issue 1 of the Peace Science Digest Since the 1980s, peace education has broadened its original focus on international peace and war prevention to include social justice, environmental education, human rights, multiculturalism, and various
It is often believed that when things aren’t going well domestically, political leaders might initiate war abroad to shift attention away from the problems at home. This so-called “diversionary foreign policy” is popular in foreign policy analysis. Diversionary foreign policy
Inside this issue, we analyze research on the negligent dismissal of environmental and health considerations during the world’s race to develop nuclear weapons. The second analysis examines how the perceived legitimacy, power, and language of certain people can influence thinking and policy on nuclear disarmament efforts. The third analysis examines how gender and Western domination of knowledge shape nuclear discourse. In the fourth analysis, we highlight the importance of devaluing nuclear weapons not only as material, but as social objects. Finally, we examine empirical research that considers U.S. proximity and power as the main contributor to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.
This article critically examines common arguments explaining North Korea’s nuclear weapons ambitions. Testing the arguments against a set of hypotheses, the author offers an alternative perspective he considers better grounded in evidence. The article is situated in the context of