Why Don’t We Use Our Nuclear Weapons?A) Destructiveness?Not necessarily the problemNuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons availableProblem: Aren’t weapons supposed to be destructive? There will always be an evolution of weapons, especially since Industrialization, to be more sophisticated and accurateGerman bombing of Warsaw (WWII)Targeted at civiliansFirebombing: dropping incendiary device; excessive temperature of 2,000 degrees F — everything instantly catches fire; targeted civiliansUS and UK used against Dresden (35,000 people died), Hamburg, Tokyo (85,000-120,000 people died)WWII: attack civilians = defeat civilians’ morale and desire to continue fighting — proven incorrectNo hard core reaction because at war — did what you had to do to win warHiroshima (Aug. 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (Aug. 9, 1945) — specifically chosen targets previously untouched from war — wanted to see how destructive the bombs were (first time ever used)No outcry against this do or die political leaders knew Japan would not surrender in conventional battle saw nuclear bomb as less destructive optionVast US majority approved of attacks (response to Pearl Harbor)Initially, no problem with destructionContinued to develop more destructive nonnuclear weapons post WWIIi.e. Daisy Cutter: bomb can explode in the air (impact expands), more destructiveB) Lack of Opportunity?No, the world has been in a constant state of war since WWIIWe have had other opportunities to use nuclear weaponsThe fact that the US has nuclear abilities has not deterred others form waging war with the USC) Battlefield Utility?No, we have other ways to use nuclear technologyTactical nuclear weapons — on the ground/battlefieldi.e. Submarines, land mines, bunker bustersCan use nuclear technology in a smaller manner with smaller impact — US has not used themDepleted uranium: durable coating for weaponsNot used for radioactive meansD) They’re Wrong/Immoral?Maybe nuclear weapons too destructiveBacklash using weapons following WWIIAudience costs/reputation tarnished if usedDifference between firebombing and nuclear weapons is the mushroom cloudSimilar damage to land, damage to people = similar at a glanceHuman Tragedy of HiroshimaChanged opinionRadiation danger realized later, not immediately70,000 people died on impactEnd of 1945: 140,000 people died1950: 200,000 people diedDoes not include increased rate of birth defectsAll a direct result of radiationDuring wartime, willing to see high level of destruction. US occupied Japan from 1950-1955. No longer began to see Japanese as evil, but as human beings. No longer willing to tolerate wartime destruction — now realize how horrible the effects of the bombs wereHad much more than immediate effectsNow that got to like the Japanese, felt very bad about the bomb, especially since those most affected were innocent civilians that have to live with the long-term consequencesNuclear fall out: what if radiation reached the US?New Norm of DeterrenceBalance of terror: US and USSR nuclear powersBoth sides can inflict mass destructionEffects on PolicyA) NPT (1968)Not going to ban nuclear weapons (distrust), but will control who has them and limit their developmentEnforced via UN sanctionsAll powers must be willing to undergo inspections and costsB) Biological (1972) and Chemical Weapons (1993)Also target the spread of theseC) DisarmamentLiberalsUse diplomacy to find peaceful/conventional ways to settle disputesProblem: (Realist) How do we know if all countries disarm?Getting rid of weapons will increase security dilemmaD) Deterrence via Extreme Build-UpOffensive realistsWhat US and USSR did during Cold WarAssumed that nuclear weapons would become the norm of warfareMany weaponsMust survive first strikeNuclear triad: land, air, and sea capabilitiesE) Deterrence via Arms Control and MADDefensive realistsDo not get rid of weapons, just make sure everyone has same capabilities* Will have mutual vulnerability in an attack (mutually assured destruction)Risk = too highKey = maintaining vulnerability reducing security dilemma, restrains politiciansMAD holds everyone backAlso have to maintain 2nd strike capabilities — otherwise not “mutually” assured destructionArms Control History1963, Partial Test Ban Treaty: prevent atmospheric testing of nuclear weaponsDo not contaminate the atmosphere1968, NPTEveryone can have peaceful nuclear technology (i.e. energy)Non-nuclear powers agree that they will not seek nuclear weapons1968, SALT (Strategic Arms Limitation Talks”)USSR and US discuss limits for each side1972, ABM Treaty (Antiballistic Missile Treaty)Limited ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Interceptors— designed to protect from attack) maintaining mutual vulnerability, risks are too highReagan defied ICBM with SDI (Strategic Defense Initiative/Star Wars) — put missile interceptors into space neither US or USSR were actually capableIncreased defense capabilities = reduce vulnerabilityGeorge W. Bush does away with ABM because of Iran and North Korea incase US needs to protect itself from them (maintained by Obama)1979, SALT IILooking at further limiting nuclear capabilities and delivery systemsNot signed by Congress1996, Comprehensive Test Ban TreatyNo more testing, stop continued development of new nuclear weapons1990s: START (Strategic Arms Reduction Talks) — 1991, 93, 97Reductions in number of nuclear weaponsFrom MAD to MAP (mutually assured protection)Reduce offensive nuclear capabilities at a time where we had increased nuclear defensive capabilitiesCritics: powers with most defensive capabilities have advantage and can become offensiveNuclear Taboo (Nina Tannenwald)Taboo to even suggest using nuclear weaponsMeaning of ProliferationProliferation: the spread of offensive nuclear capabilities to non-NPT powersTalking about Iran, North Korea, India, etc.NPT: will not develop offensive or defensive nuclear technologyConsequences if violatedEnforced by UN (not US)Countries who defy NPT are problems motives are offensive, not defensive = red flag, dangerousDeterrence and Small/New StatesNuclear weapons deterrence applied well in Cold War context, but outside of that context we have new states maybe risky for them to have weaponsA) Preconditions for Possessing Nuclear Weapons1) Strong, stable government2) Sophisticated technology3) Advanced communication system4) Large stock piles, spread out5) Precautions built into the system along with
View Full Document
Unlocking...