Abstract
This study examines major theoretical models that seek to explain states’ pursuit of nuclear weapons programmes and decisions to abandon them. A comparative historical analysis of multiple case studies suggests that the traditional ‘security’ model cannot be supplanted by Scott Sagan’s challenger alternatives – the ‘domestic political’ and ‘norms’ models. While political dynamics and normative pressures play a significant role in nuclear policymaking, the analysis indicates that these factors are themselves influenced by underlying security considerations. The findings further caution the United States against relying exclusively on normative constraints or the presence of democratic political structures to dissuade allies facing growing nuclear threats from pursuing nuclear breakout capabilities.