The Credibility Crisis of Extended Nuclear Deterrence.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33445/psssj.2026.7.3.6Keywords:
Extended nuclear deterrence, Credibility crisis, Alliance politics, Nuclear strategy, Credibility diffusion, Deterrence decoupling, Responsive credibility, Asymmetric entanglementAbstract
Extended Nuclear Deterrence (END) is a core component of alliance politics which originated during the Cold War. This study will argue that extended nuclear deterrence is currently suffering from a severe credibility crisis due to structural shifts in the global environment, and that these developments are not well explained through current theoretical models. Through qualitative analysis of end-deterrent relationships in which the U.S., NATO, Japan, South Korea, and potentially Ukraine are involved, this study introduces two new constructs (credibility diffusion & deterrent decoupling), as well as two new theoretical models (responsive credibility model; asymmetric entanglement model for extended deterrence). The study shows that the ability of extended nuclear guarantees to be credible rests much less on nuclear capability than it does upon political cohesion, control of the narrative, domestic audience cost, and the degree of entanglement between allied command systems. These results indicate that traditional assumptions regarding the stabilization effect of extended deterrence need to be significantly revised in a period of Hybrid Warfare, Multipolar Competition, and decreasing Solidarity among Allies. Finally, the study provides policy suggestions for maintaining credibility for extended deterrence guarantees and outlines a potential research agenda for empirically validating the claims made in the paper.
Downloads
References
Acton, J. M. (2018). Escalation through entanglement: How the vulnerability of command-and-control systems raises the risks of an inadvertent nuclear war. International Security, 43(1), 56–99. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00320
Acton, J. M., MacDonald, T. D., & Vaddi, P. (2020). Revamping nuclear arms control: Five near-term proposals. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2020/12/revamping-nuclear-arms-control-five-near-term-proposals
Adler, E. (2005). Communitarian international relations: The epistemic foundations of international relations. Routledge.
Bigo, D. (2002). Security and immigration: Toward a critique of the governmentality of unease. Alternatives: Global, Local, Political, 27(1_suppl), 63–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/03043754020270S105
Erickson, A. S., & Wuthnow, J. (2016). Barriers, springboards and benchmarks: China conceptualizes the Pacific “island chains.” The China Quarterly, 225, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305741016000011
Edmond, C. NATO’s evolution and European security dynamics. Discov glob soc 4, 234 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44282-026-00594-1
Edmond, C. Nuclear deterrence in the age of hybrid warfare. Discov glob soc 4, 228 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44282-026-00419-1
Fearon, J. D. (1994). Domestic political audiences and the escalation of international disputes. American Political Science Review, 88(3), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.2307/2944796
Feaver, P. D. (2003). Armed servants: Agency, oversight, and civil-military relations. Harvard University Press.
Finnemore, M. (2003). The purpose of intervention: Changing beliefs about the use of force. Cornell University Press.
Fravel, M. T. (2020). China’s “world-class military” ambitions: Origins and implications. The Washington Quarterly, 43(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2020.1735850
Freedman, L. (2004). Deterrence. Polity Press.
Freedman, L. (2019). The future of war: A history. PublicAffairs.
Gartzke, E., & Lindsay, J. R. (2015). Weaving tangled webs: Offense, defense, and deception in cyberspace. Security Studies, 24(2), 316–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/09636412.2015.1038188
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. MIT Press.
Grand, C. (2016, July 4). Nuclear deterrence and the Alliance in the 21st century. NATO Review. https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2016/07/04/nuclear-deterrence-and-the-alliance-in-the-21st-century/index.html
Hopf, T. (2002). Social construction of international politics: Identities & foreign policies, Moscow, 1955 and 1999. Cornell University Press.
Huntington, S. P. (1981). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil–military relations. Harvard University Press.
Japan–U.S. Security Consultative Committee. (2015, April 27). The guidelines for Japan–U.S. defense cooperation. Ministry of Defense of Japan. https://www.mod.go.jp/en/j-us-alliance/guidelines/index.html
Jervis, R. (1989). The meaning of the nuclear revolution: Statecraft and the prospect of Armageddon. Cornell University Press.
Korpi, W. (1978). Social democracy in welfare capitalism—Structural erosion, welfare backlash and incorporation? Acta Sociologica, 21(1_suppl), 97–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/000169937802101s06
Kristensen, H. M., Korda, M., Johns, E., & Knight, M. (2024). Russian nuclear weapons, 2024. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 80(2), 118–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/00963402.2024.2314437
Kuzio, T. (2023). Imperial nationalism as the driver behind Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Nations and Nationalism, 29(1), 30–38. https://doi.org/10.1111/nana.12875
Mazarr, M. J. (2015). Mastering the gray zone: Understanding a changing era of conflict. U.S. Army War College Press. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/428/
Mazarr, M. J. (2018). Understanding deterrence. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/PE295
Memorandum on security assurances in connection with Ukraine’s accession to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, December 5, 1994, 3007 U.N.T.S. 167. https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%203007/Part/volume-3007-I-52241.pdf
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Korea. (2023, July 19). U.S.–ROK joint press release on Nuclear Consultative Group. https://www.mofa.go.kr/eng/brd/m_5676/view.do?page=2&seq=322240
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (2022). NATO 2022 strategic concept.
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (n.d.-a). France and NATO. https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/nato-history/history-by-theme/my-country-and-nato/france-and-nato
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (n.d.-b). Kosovo air campaign (March–June 1999). https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/operations-and-missions/kosovo-air-campaign-march-june-1999
North Atlantic Treaty Organization. (n.d.-c). NATO operations and missions. https://www.nato.int/en/what-we-do/operations-and-missions/nato-operations-and-missions
Peters, R., Anderson, J., & Menke, H. (2018). Deterrence in the 21st century: Integrating nuclear and conventional force. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 12(4), 15–43. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26533613
Sagan, S. D., & Waltz, K. N. (2013). The spread of nuclear weapons: An enduring debate (3rd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.
Samuels, R. J. (2007). Securing Japan: Tokyo’s grand strategy and the future of East Asia. Cornell University Press.
Schelling, T. C. (1966). Arms and influence. Yale University Press.
Schiff, R. L. (2009). The military and domestic politics: A concordance theory of civil–military relations. Routledge.
Shalev, M. (1983). Class politics and the western welfare state. In S. E. Spiro & E. Yuchtman-Yaar (Eds.), Evaluating the welfare state (pp. 27–52). Academic Press.
Tannenwald, N. (2007). The nuclear taboo: The United States and the non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511491726
U.S. Department of Defense. (2024, October 30). U.S.–Republic of Korea Security Consultative Meeting and 2+2 Ministerial Dialogue fact sheet. https://media.defense.gov/2024/Oct/30/2003574696/-1/-1/0/ROK-SCM-FACT-SHEET-V5.PDF
United States Forces Korea. (n.d.). Combined Forces Command. https://www.usfk.mil/About/CFC/
Walt, S. M. (1987). The origins of alliances. Cornell University Press.
Waltz, K. N. (1981). The spread of nuclear weapons: More may be better (Adelphi Paper No. 171). International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Wendt, A. (1999). Social theory of international politics. Cambridge University Press.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Edmond Chick
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors agree with the following conditions:
1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication (Download agreement) with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2. Authors have the right to complete individual additional agreements for the non-exclusive spreading of the journal’s published version of the work (for example, to post work in the electronic repository of the institution or to publish it as part of a monograph), with the reference to the first publication of the work in this journal.
3. Journal’s politics allows and encourages the placement on the Internet (for example, in the repositories of institutions, personal websites, SSRN, ResearchGate, MPRA, SSOAR, etc.) manuscript of the work by the authors, before and during the process of viewing it by this journal, because it can lead to a productive research discussion and positively affect the efficiency and dynamics of citing the published work (see The Effect of Open Access).
