Abstract
The emergence of a “third nuclear age” has intensified scholarly attention on how non-nuclear strategic weapons affect nuclear postures under conditions of renewed great-power rivalry. As most research focuses on nuclear-armed states, there remains a gap in understanding how regional powers seek to obtain deterrence benefits through their conventional missile postures and how threat perceptions shape posture choices. This research seeks to address this gap in two steps. First, by comparing the missile postures of different regional powers and drawing on scholarship from nuclear posture analysis, the project develops a typology of three ideal-type conventional missile postures – retaliatory, warfighting, and strategic-escalatory. It then introduces an empirical examination of the emerging German posture by combining procurement data, parliamentary records, and official statements with semi-structured interviews with German policymakers and military officials. The interviews clarify how decision-makers think about likely threat scenarios, target categories, views on first use, survivability, the role of parity with Russian capabilities, and assessments of nuclear–conventional entanglement risks. On an academic level, this project contributes to debates on deterrence beyond the binary nuclear/non-nuclear divide. On a policy level, it provides insights into nuclear–conventional entanglement risks in Europe and implications for future arms control and stability efforts.
Panel: Cocktail & Poster Session