When states profess support for nuclear nonproliferation, why do some of them support strong measures to enforce nonproliferation and others do not? Some policymakers accuse the latter states of being soft on nonproliferation or being a supporter in name only. What they fail to realize, however, is that these states see global nuclear politics in a completely different way. This paper will investigate how identity and perception of social facts combine to create vastly different policy preferences among states that all profess support for the same overarching goal.
