The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945

by Nina Tannenwald

Why have nuclear weapons not been used since Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945? Nina Tannenwald disputes the conventional answer of 'deterrence' in favour of what she calls a nuclear taboo - a widespread inhibition on using nuclear weapons - which has arisen in global politics. Drawing on newly released archival sources, Tannenwald traces the rise of the nuclear taboo, the forces that produced it, and its influence, particularly on US leaders. She analyzes four critical instances where US leaders considered using nuclear weapons (Japan 1945, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Gulf War 1991) and examines how the nuclear taboo has repeatedly dissuaded US and other world leaders from resorting to these 'ultimate weapons'. Through a systematic analysis, Tannenwald challenges conventional conceptions of deterrence and offers a compelling argument on the moral bases of nuclear restraint as well as an important insight into how nuclear war can be avoided in the future.

Genres: International Relations, History, Nonfiction, Politics

472 pages, Hardcover

First published January 14, 2007

Reviews

[Mihai Zodian · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nina Tannenwald`s book is very actual. The author, a former peace activist argues that a taboo exists against the use of nuclear weapons, which also influences the behavior of Great Powers, sometimes against their leader`s wishes. Like any customary rule, if you break it, you are treated like a pariah, even if there are no world police.

Yesterday`s reactions to Russia`s alert suggest that she has a point. One can notice a taboo when there is a spontaneous, hostile reaction of “this is unthinkable”.

[Ed · Rating 2 out of 5]

A constructivist approach to understanding the nuclear taboo. Interesting, but ultimately hard for me to accept, since its describing an idea that the author says has sufficient force to stay the hand of political and military leaders in a crisis. The basis of the argument is that it *did* in the past. How do we know it was the taboo, and not realist concerns about the efficacy of the weapons? The author tries to address these concerns, but I don't think very convincingly. In the end, the greatest weakness of this theory is that it is based on cool reason, something that I think applies least in the most extreme case, a nuclear exchange.

[Margot O’Brien · Rating 4 out of 5]

interesting constructivist approach