My research interests are in international security, international law, global governance, and particularly on contemporary and historical nuclear politics. I’m interested in issues of identity, status, and recognition in the global nuclear regime. I take an interdisciplinary perspective on international security that draws from political science, history, and sociology.

Book Manuscript:

After Fission: Recognition and Contestation in the Atomic Age

Many crises of nuclear security are linked to the uncertainty surrounding the possession of nuclear technology. Scholars and policymakers invest much effort forecasting when countries will “go nuclear.” But what does it mean to “go nuclear” in the first place? This book examines the social construction of nuclear and non-nuclear states. The difference between nuclear and non-nuclear states is a major component of the language of international politics: countries divide themselves along these lines and pursue particular policies as a result. But the distinction is puzzling because there is no agreed-upon way to know which is which. There is no one objective technical marker of nuclear status. Does it take a successful nuclear weapons test? Is the ability to enrich uranium sufficient? Does an advanced capability to build nuclear weapons suffice without actual construction?

This book shows that the confusion over nuclear and non-nuclear status animates many international crises around nuclear weapons and that revealing the politics behind how nuclear status is defined, helps make sense of international politics in a new way. Contestation over nuclear status emerges in technical debates about nuclear tests and uranium enrichment levels, in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s (NPT) legal separation between “nuclear weapons states” (NWS) and “non-nuclear weapons states” (NNWS), and in normative invocations of the sovereign right to develop nuclear technology. I explore how the distinction is constructed and the role it plays in some of today’s main nuclear controversies. I argue that being marked as a nuclear or non-nuclear state is not simply a function of material achievement but entails a social process of recognition. The technical possession of nuclear weapons does not always lead to legal and social recognition—a phenomenon evident in Israel, India, and Iran’s unique nuclear histories.

Works in progress:

“Of Bombs and Reactors: Civil Society Groups and the Discourse of Nuclear Dualism”

Abstract: Problems with nuclear dual-use and the possible diversion of nuclear materials from energy programs into weapons construction is a well-covered subject in the study of nuclear politics. Rather than examining the technical dimensions of dual-use, this paper conceptualizes nuclear dualism as a discourse that has evolved over time. The paper focuses primarily on the role of civil society groups and their engagement with the idea of nuclear dual-use. I situate early public understandings of dual-use in the “Atoms for Peace” program which reinforced the idea of dual pathways and pivoted to peaceful use to shift away from the specter of nuclear annihilation. Civil society groups that spearheaded the anti-nuclear movement in the 1970s challenged the Atoms for Peace consensus and successfully tied together energy and weaponry in the public imaginary. More recently, pro-nuclear grassroots advocates contest this connection. Contemporary approaches to nuclear dualism vary from distancing energy and weapons to embracing the connection in order promote nuclear energy as a viable response to climate change. Through historical analysis of archival material and interviews with leaders of contemporary pro- and anti- nuclear civil society groups, this paper tracks how framings of nuclear dual-use have shaped public views on nuclear energy. A recent increase in public support of nuclear energy make perceptions around the peaceful and destructive potential of nuclear technology even more important for the future of nuclear energy.