Sarah Kreps

October 2009

"Targeting Nuclear Programs in War and Peace"

Discussion Paper

By Matthew Fuhrmann, Affiliate, Project on Managing the Atom and Sarah Kreps, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2007-2008

When do states attack or consider attacking nuclear infrastructure in nonnuclear weapons states? Despite the importance of this question, relatively few scholarly articles have attempted to identify the factors that lead a state to attack another state's nuclear facilities. This paper conducts the first large-n analysis on when states use force as a way to control proliferation.

This paper challenges existing arguments that states are deterred from attacking nuclear programs by the prospect of a military retaliation from the proliferating state or concerns about international condemnation. Instead, it finds that states are more likely to attack nuclear programs when they believe that the proliferating state might use nuclear weapons or engage in other offensive behavior. States are willing to accept substantial costs in attacking if they believe that a particular country's acquisition of nuclear weapons poses a significant threat to their security.

July-September 2008

"When Does the Mission Determine the Coalition? The Logic of Multilateral Intervention and the Case of Afghanistan"

Journal Article, Security Studies, issue 3, volume 17

By Sarah Kreps, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2007-2008

"Using the debate between the logic of appropriateness and consequences as a theoretical backdrop, I argue that neither is able to explain the United States' choices between unilateralism and multilateralism in post-Cold War military interventions....In this article, I suggest that "consequences" are best specified according to time horizon, which creates intertemporal tradeoffs between the long-term benefits of multilateralism and immediate payoffs of unilateralism, and the nature of the intervention, which affects the operational payoffs of multilateralism. I test this argument and the existing explanations against the case of Afghanistan. Its within-case variation — largely unilateral in combat operations and robustly multilateral in post-conflict phases — lends strong support to the logic of consequences as specified according to time horizon and operational payoff."

March 6, 2008

"Chávez Rattles His Saber"

Op-Ed, International Herald Tribune

By Gustavo Flores-Macías and Sarah Kreps, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2007-2008

"So far, the United States has refrained from responding to Chávez's antagonistic rhetoric. But the U.S. should be prepared for a more active approach if events escalate. The region might object to a direct U.S. military intervention, but Washington might consider quietly stepping up the supply of aid, training and equipment to Colombia."

December 1, 2007

"The United Nations–African Union Mission in Darfur: Implications and Prospects for Success"

Journal Article, African Security Review, issue 4, volume 16

By Sarah Kreps, Former Research Fellow, International Security Program, 2007-2008

With the security situation in Darfur remaining grim, the international community passed United Nations Security Resolution 1769 that authorised a more robust peacekeeping force. This article addresses the security concerns motivating the United Nations-African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), highlights the mandate and implications of the force, and compares the potential command and control issues to the experiences of the Somalia intervention in the 1990s. It closes by analysing the prospects for success of the intervention and offering some limited recommendations on ways to mitigate the risks associated with the peacekeeping effort.