Domestic Politics and the Bomb: The Influence of State Regime Type on Nuclear Deterrence By Mark Haichin A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Affairs in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in International Affairs Norman Paterson School of International Affairs Carleton University Ottawa, Ontario ©2020 Mark Haichin Abstract Why are some nuclear weapon states attacked more than others? Reviewing attacks against them shows that nuclear-armed democracies are attacked more than non-democratic ones, indicating that state regime type may play a role in nuclear deterrence credibility. This is largely ignored in the nuclear deterrence literature despite many conceptual similarities to conventional armed conflict, which has numerous theories on regime type influencing state conflict behaviour. In this dissertation, I seek to explain the disparity in attacks on nuclear weapon states with a novel theory that state political accountability mechanisms influence nuclear deterrence threat credibility. I hypothesize that democratic states are more sensitive to the costs of fulfilling their nuclear deterrence threats in low-intensity conflict scenarios due to popular accountability. Non-democratic nuclear weapon states can make more credible threats due to being accountable to an elite audience instead of the general population, allowing them to engage in cost-insensitive behaviour. To accomplish this, I use process tracing within a broader comparative case study framework to study crises affecting four nuclear weapon states during the 1945-2018 period. For each of these four states (Israel, India, Pakistan, and North Korea), I study the makeup of their government, including their domestic audiences, their nuclear deterrence threats, and command and control structures. I then compare pre- and post-nuclear deterrent acquisition crises targeting them and evaluate the rationales of decision-makers for both the defending and challenging states, particularly how the latter perceived the former’s cost-sensitivity. The results indicate that, as anticipated, nuclear-armed democracies face greater difficulties in having their nuclear deterrence threats considered credible in low-intensity crises than their non-democratic counterparts. However, each case comes with notable caveats. Israel's nuclear opacity policy obscures whether government restraint is due to accountability or potential international reactions, while the Indian government often goes against popular sentiment in demonstrating restraint. While Pakistan and North Korea have both successfully deterred even low-intensity attacks against them due to the perception that they are sufficiently cost-insensitive to use nuclear weapons against any attack, the latter's aggression has led to it being considered sufficiently dangerous as to encourage potential pre-emptive strikes against it. ii Acknowledgements This thesis would not have been possible without the support of numerous people. I first need to thank my supervisor, David Carment, who for the past few years provided plenty of useful advice and honest feedback throughout the research and writing process. His knowledge of regime types and associated theories was critical in fine-tuning the theory and critical points in the case studies (and occasionally finding points that needed some elaboration or correction). Dr. Carment also deserves thanks for having taken me on as a research assistant and co-author on several projects throughout my PhD studies, as well as having taught the qualitative methodologies that served as the backbone of my research. It is safe to say that my experiences with him have made me a better research, and I am grateful for it. I also need to thank my original supervisor, Jeremy ‘Jez’ Littlewood for guiding me in writing the original thesis proposal right up until his very last day at NPSIA. During that time, Dr. Littlewood’s guidance was critical in helping me flesh out what was originally a rough idea into a viable theory and research design. While it was sad to see him leave NPSIA, I owe him thanks for his feedback and encouragement in the early steps of the thesis process, which also helped me get my first academic publication. My advisors Elinor Sloan and Alex Wilner are both owed considerable thanks as well. Throughout the process of writing this thesis, they provided detailed and rapid feedback to my drafts (no mean feat, considering how long the chapters ended up being). Their extensive knowledge of deterrence theory and history helped keep me on the right track during the writing process, as well as pointing me towards sources that I likely would not have found otherwise. My internal and external examiners, Dr. Mira Sucharov and Dr. James Fergusson, also deserve thanks for their constructive feedback during my thesis defence. I’m also grateful to several others at NPSIA for their support throughout the process. Special thanks are owed in particular to David Long for his encouragement in the early stages of my PhD studies, as well as Stephen Saideman for having pointed out audience costs as a possible mechanism for my theory. And of course, the NPSIA administrative staff, particularly Patricia Lacroix and Coleen Kornelson, need to be thanked for helping me navigate the PhD program for the past 5+ years. Thanks are owed to NPSIA, Carleton University, and the Province of Ontario (Ontario Graduate Scholarship) for generously awarding funding that enabled me to concentrate full-time on my doctoral studies and to attend academic conferences during the past few years. iii I’m also grateful to Monika Thakur, who almost single-handedly convinced me to shift my career plans from law school to international relations during her Introduction to IR and International Security courses during my undergrad studies at Concordia University. Furthermore, she was the one who originally suggested that I apply to graduate programs in International Relations. It would not be an exaggeration for me to say that without her influence, my career path and life would have gone in a very different direction. Naturally, there are many friends to thank for having supported me along the way. Sam MacIsaac and Kala Pendakur have been especially supportive since we first met in my second year in the program, with Sam having been willing to give informal feedback on my writing (even if it meant wading through some meandering prose far from his own field of expertise). Sarah Jansen, Lance Hadley, and Dani Belo have also been steadfast friends throughout my PhD experience, providing many laughs as we exchanged stories while all being clustered in the offices (and when the COVID-19 pandemic struck, online as well). Amber Warnat, Bryan Bereziuk, Michael Fejes, and Marshall Palmer also deserve thanks here as well. Uri Marantz and Michael Shkolnik also need to be thanked for having set an example for myself and other NPSIA PhD students. Both of them have consistently provided friendly advice and support since the orientation session on my very first day at NPSIA. Finally, my family have undoubtedly been the greatest source of support throughout my academic career. My parents Rick and Guittel supported my interests from an early age, even as they veered far from their own careers in medicine and dentistry, and always took the time and energy to help me out with schoolwork (and to occasionally provide a necessary reminder to step away from the ever-growing book pile). Their interest in current events, including the ever-present collection of Time magazines lying around the house and my mom’s encouragement to apply to the IR program at LSE undoubtedly helped set my career path. Thank you both for having believed in me this whole time, even when I occasionally doubted what I was doing. I’m also profoundly grateful to my siblings Michael and Kate for their support. Despite studying pharmacology and medicine at the same time, you two have been supportive of your anxious older brother. Your hard work in your own fields has inspired me to keep on pushing ahead whenever I was tempted to take it easy or (somewhat more often) whenever I felt stuck. To my grandparents, Raphael, Georgette, and Martha, I can never thank you enough for supporting me, even if my research seemed somewhat esoteric to your own experiences. And to Shura, while I am sad that you aren’t here to read this, I can only hope that you would have been proud, and I can never thank you enough for supporting my intellectual pursuits and that of everyone else in our family. iv Table of Contents Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables and Figures ............................................................................................................. x List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... xi Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1 1.1: Are Some Nuclear Weapon States Better at Deterring Than Others? .......................... 1 1.2: Research Question and Argument .................................................................................... 5 1.3: Key Concepts......................................................................................................................