Nuclear DeterrenceI. Nuclear deterrenceWhy don't we use our nuclear weapons?Morals, ecological destruction, end of everything, no justification,Destructiveness?Nukes are the most destructiveAren't weapons supposed to be more destructive? Isn't that the point?Since the Industrial revolution we've been trying to kill each other better, and doing it on a wider scale.Firebombing, daisy cutter, …WWII: yup, everybody fucked everything upDresden and Hamburg firebombingTokyo firebombing (85-200K civilians killed)Hiroshima and NagasakiDo or die, either drop the bombs or an invasion would be a battle to the last manNo blow-back from the bombs droppingBombs on Japan was better than an invasion and Generals did not find a problem with ordering those attacksLack of Opportunity?Nope, there were definitely chances to use nukesKorean war, McArthur wanted to use them and Truman said noBattlefield Utility?Tactical nuclear weaponsWe've got themSmaller and for everything that has ever been created to go BOOMDepleted uraniumCan put it on anythingShells, bulletsCreates more force on impact. Are you telling me we can kill shit harder? That’s right!They're wrong/immoral?They are now. After WWII people have been lashing out against nukes being used/developed/keptHuman tragedy of Hiroshima and NagasakiRadiationExponential death, 75K on impact and then 200K had died by 1950 due to the bombs and their radiationPeople's IQ's have gone down due to the radiationNew norm of deterrenceBalance of terror - sums it up, no one will ever use these weapons but no one will ever fuck with the country crazy enough to have them.Not a balance of power any more, unacceptable amounts of destruction could be sent either way (USA or USSR)Countries that didn't have nukes helped push this new norm of deterrence of not actually using nukesEffects on PolicyNeither the USA or USSR banned nukes, they didn't trust each otherThey can control who has them and who develops themNPT (1968)Nuclear Proliferation Treaty - to control who can get, use, or develop nukesPretty much everyone has signedExcept - India, Pakistan, Israel, and TaiwanNorth Korea is withdrawn from itBiological weapons treaty (1972) and chemical weapons convention (1993)DisarmamentLiberal idea - struck down. Nobody wanted to disarm (US, USSR)Realists - what if a nation hasn't gotten rid of their nukes? Or develop them after the fact? Screws the security dilemmaDeterrence via Extreme build-upUSA and USSRFocus on nukes and tactical nukesHave so many nukes (nuclear triad: land, air, and sea) that no matter what you will be able to launch an attack backCan't take out all the nukes in the first strikeActually enhanced the security dilemmaDeterrence via Arms Control and MADDon’t get rid of them, but keep them.Number capEveryone is allowed to have them, but no arms raceSame level of capability to use armsMutual vulnerability -MAD = mutual assured destructionAll powers are vulnerable to destructionBut there must be a strike back or else there isn't any MADArms Control History (see slide)From MAD to MAPMAP = ???Hold the politicians liableReal history of Arms control1963 - Partial test ban treaty1968 - NPT1968 - SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks)1972 - ABM Treaty (limited ICBM interceptors)1979 - SALT II1996 - Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty1990's - START (91,93,97)1972 - Biological Weapons Treaty1993 - Chemical Weapons Convention= Nuclear DeterrenceMarch 28, 2013Nuclear ProliferationI. “Nuclear Taboo” (Nina Tannenwald)II. Meaning of ProliferationRogue StatesIII. Deterrence and Small/New StatesA. PreconditionsB. ProblemsC. Regional ConflictIV. Constructivism (and Identity Perspective)A. Individual NormsB. International NormsShapes StrategyC. Nuclear NormsD. Do Norms Matter?I. “Nuclear Taboo” (Nina Tannenwald)Idea that use of Nuclear weapons is morally wrongWhen they began to understand how destructive they wereIndiscriminant in killingKept killing even after it went offBirth defects in JapanPotential of radioactive contamination that came with using the weapons (not just affect 1 country but potentially everyone)If country wants to use them then they are looked down upon as pariahs“Nuclear Taboo” – Nina Tannenwaldworld has come to agree that use of nuclear weapons is wrong and even suggestion of it has become a taboothis is the threat you DON’T makeSO many people had nuclear ability that we realized if there was a nuclear war it would mutually destroy everything – deterrenceMAD developed – ways to control (limit and reduce)II. Meaning of ProliferationProliferation – spreading of offensive nuclear capabilities to non-NPT statesNot U.S., France, Britain, China, instead Iran, N. Korea. Sanctions if defy NPT and have signedCriticismBullying by U.S.NPT enforced by U.N. where U.S. member, but not only memberNot bullyingWhy defy?Not for defense, so raises red flags because in age where we don’t use nukes. Rogue State- State that seeks to acquire nuclear weaponsIn complete defiance of our international agreements and normsMotives are questionedNorth KoreaIranIII. Deterrence and Small/New StatesOffensive realist viewArgued more nuclear weapons means more deterrence. Apply to large powers not small/new statesIf new states became nuclear states, Potentially does opposite and increases security dilemmaDeterrence and non-use require certain preconditions and thought new states don’t meet themA. Preconditionsif possession of nuclear weapons is going to provide deterrence then there are some preconditionsHave strong stable governmentSophisticated technologyHave model communication systemLarge stock piles, that are spread out (ideal - nuclear triad)Precautions built into system along with good securitySecond strike capability (if want deterrence)Criticism – who is talking about and does it apply to smaller, weaker, new states post 1945. Would having this technology make stronger or increase likelihood of war instead of deterrence? B. ProblemsApply to larger powers (NPT nuclear powers) but not smaller or newly forming states. Often new states didn’t have strong governments and were vulnerable. Many dictatorships. Leader who doesn’t use restraint and if weak command in control might not have good security to protect nuclear facility and more vulnerable to accidents occurring. Also, inadequate arsenals for newer states – may not have second strike capabilities and may be more vulnerable to attack. NEED nuclear triad. Limited technology
View Full Document
Unlocking...