Rejection is part of academia, not a sign you’re not good enough. Keep revising, learning, and submitting. Persistence matters!
#NuclearWeapons #SecurityStudies #AcademicPublishing #PhDChat #OpenAccess

PS for PhD students & junior colleagues: The first iteration of this manuscript was rejected after a second review round, followed by eight more rejections from top journals. Rejections hurt—but each provided useful feedback that strengthened the paper.

I’d be delighted to discuss further—feedback welcome!

Also to @fsv.charlesuni.cuni.cz at @charlesuni.cuni.cz
for institutional support and to colleages who commented on earlier drafts at @prcp.cuni.cz seminars, ISSS-IS Annual Conference in Gainesville, and @isanet.bsky.social Convention in San Francisco.

Huge thanks to reviewers and editors at @globalpolicy.bsky.social for a smooth process and thoughtful comments.

Key takeaway? Understanding how historical policy choices constrain today's decisions is vital for addressing contemporary nuclear risks. Strategic paths set decades ago are influencing the future more than we realize.

The U.S. aim to preserve freedom of action in regional conflicts by underming adversaries’ nuclear deterrence through advanced conventional capabilities now drives intense arms races with Russia and China—fueling instability and crisis escalation risks.

Using a path-dependence approach, I show how past U.S. decisions on missile defense and precision-guided conventional strikes have locked in policy trajectories that shape today’s strategic landscape.

I argue that the new age is not simply a renewed Cold War-like competition with more advanced technologies. Instead, the new nuclear age shows significant path dependency from post-Cold War US strategies against rogue states.