Abstract

That nuclear weapons have not been used in war since 1945 is one of the most intriguing research puzzles in the field of international relations. It has sparked a fruitful scholarly debate: Can the persistence of the nonuse of nuclear weapons be understood with reference to a normative “taboo” subject to a constructivist logic of appropriateness, or does it rather constitute a prudent tradition based on a logic of consequences as rationalist scholars would have it? Recently, a study by Daryl Press, Scott Sagan, and Benjamin Valentino provided further impetus for this debate and opened up a “second generation” of “taboo” research. Unlike the first generation, the second wave examined attitudes toward nuclear use among the general public rather than elite decision-makers and used large-N experimental surveys rather than in-depth interviews and archival research. In particular, these studies raised several methodological questions on how to capture the “atomic aversion”: Is it meaningful to examine public attitudes in order to grasp the validity of the nuclear “taboo” (as opposed to elite perspectives) and can we infer a weakening of the normative aversion toward nuclear use from public surveys? Bringing together the pioneers of the original debate as well as more recent contributors, this special forum seeks to take stock of the progress that has been made by discussing the theoretical, conceptual, and methodological underpinnings of the research on the nonuse of nuclear weapons. Specifically, the contributions critically reflect upon the second wave of nuclear taboo scholarship with the overall aim to build bridges between different theoretical approaches and to identify avenues for further research in this area. Ultimately, this forum seeks to present the relevance of re-envisioning nuclear taboo research to a broader audience.