The Ecosystem of American Nuclear Rhetoric

When it comes to nuclear weapons, words matter: they determine other states' read on the credibility of threats and assurances, shape domestic opinion of national security, and underpin their strategic value, as deterrence relies on credibility. In this thesis, I argue that presidential rhetoric around nuclear weapons is shaped by the broader discursive environment. I employ a typology of critiques of nuclear weapons based on language and scope. I then apply this typology to two cases, the Reagan and Obama administration. First, I establish the shifts in the environment, using large-scale content analysis to identify changes. Then, through archives and elite interviews, I analyze how these changes affect presidential decisions regarding the language they employed. Analyzing the rhetorical environment reveals that leaders use new forms of contestation to connect and reassure important audiences but ultimately do little to reshape nuclear posture. In other words, they translate policy challenges into political capital while avoiding tangible change.