Nuclear Weapons Deterrence and Proliferation Why don t we use our Nuclear Weapons A Destructiveness No the point of nuclear weapons is to have the most destructive weapon Since the creation of nuclear weapons weapons have only become more destructive During WWII focused on civilians significantly this would destroy the moral of the enemy If you do it to civilians they won t support the war effort B Deterrence No Our ownership of nukes inclines other powers not to fight us however this is not always the case Other countries have still challenged us since the creation of nuclear weapons C Battlefield Utility No Tactical nuclear weapons are designed with limited damage radius in order to be used on the battlefield Can be used on torpedos land mines bunker busters etc Depleted uranium D They re Wrong Immoral Yes Public opinion has turned against the use of them Nuclear Taboo Nina Tannenwald o Idea that nuclear weapons are immoral and should not be used the rest of the world will look upon any country that does use them extremely negatively Opinion began to change after Hiroshima and Nagasaki o Hiroshima 70 000 dead on impact o By 1945 another 70 000 died from radiation o By 1950 over 200 000 people had been killed by the bomb and its radiation o Horrific rates of birth defects for years and years New Norm of Deterrence A Retaliation if we use it they will use it back chain reaction Effects on Policy A NPT 1968 We were unwilling to ban nuclear weapons We agreed to limit and control nuclear weapons Committed all those who signed to limit possession of weapons and ensure that they would not pursue and would withhold the technology from countries that did not already have it Countries that didn t sign Pakistan India North Korea N Korea originally signed but then pulled out B Biological 1972 and Chemical Weapons 1993 Geneva Protocols banned use of gas Biological Weapons Treaty and Chemical Weapons Conventions banned the use of biological and chemical weapons C Disarmament vs Deterrence Complete disarmament comes from liberals Wants to see countries get rid of weapons and focus on diplomacy With this we wouldn t have to fear nuclear war Deterrence via extreme build up championed by realists The best way to prevent war is to prepare for war to not be vulnerable This deters enemy Massive build up of nuclear weapons happened after WWII o tried to get as many as we could convince other side that you will win because of the amount you have o Also developed defensive strategies to protect nation so they could withstand the first strike We could absorb first strike and then be ready to respond Nuclear Triad nuclear capability on land air and sea Deterence via arms control and MAD Limit amount of weapons we have Balance capabilities we want same amount as eneimes mutual vulernability Atmosphere of MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUTION I Arms Control History see slide Moderate position between disarmament and deterrence Reducing the number and ensuring a balance of capabilities US and USSR had the SAME nuclear capabilities as one another It establishes mutual vulnerability As long as were vulnerable we have public constraints and they would not take an extra step A From MAD to MAP Mutual Assured Destruction MAD Both sides would go down because both powers maintained second strike capability It would restrain politicians from being too aggressive with one another and assured Soviets that we wouldn t get into a nuclear war Arms Control is the best policy to pursue Maintain MAD and level of deterrence Mutual Assured Protection MAP some thought it would increase the likelihood of war because those with capabilities could defend themselves and would initiate a war because they can protect themselves Reagan offered it to Soviets so one power didn t have over power I Nuclear Proliferation Leads to the question though what states can have nukes NP is the spread of nuclear weapons and or offensive nuclear capabilities At this point it is countries that aren t NPT signers Why does any country now need to develop that technology now if were all committed to not use it It comes down to the country s motives then Countries that have challenged this have shown aggressive tendencies and are unpredictable N Korea has tested them and so has Iran they are developing these capabilities in defiance of NPT but we don t know motives but don t seem good Develops problems and insecurity A Realists on Weak New States Realists are proponents of deterrence but they are concerned that if these new weak powers came to possess these capabilities but would lose deterrence factor a A state has to have a strong stable government b The state has to be in possession of advanced technology c The state has to have modern communications d The state needs to have large stock piles of nuclear weapons that are dispersed in order to maintain second strike capability Most of these new and weak states do not have these and because of e They have to have precautions against accidents corruption f Have to have solid security deterrence we have a higher risk that the weapons will be misused and fall into the wrong hands OR that the state will be even more vulnerable due to its limited possession or inadequate security This would help encourage Realists to support the NPT if they have the above standards I Constructivism and the nuclear norm of non use We have norms and constructivists dont just apply to individual but also states Additional Terms Balance of Terror First Strike Second Strike Capability Nuclear Triad Balance of Capabilities Mutual Vulnerability ICBM SDI Clash of Civilizations Post Cold War Environment Went from a tense yet stable bi polar international system to a uni polar one The end of the Cold War was in some ways was Traumatic with America as the hegemon Mearsheimer predicted that there would be challenges to the United States because the Soviet Union was no longer there to fill the role believed that we would have a re armament of Europe and or Japan or China resulting in a multi polar and less stable environment predicted that there would no longer be a clash of ideologies and that there would be over time a spread of liberal democracy there would be conflict as the spread of democracy occurs but in the end there is a hope for peace Predicts conflict like realist but for a different reason Believed that there would be a clash of civilizations Fukuyama Huntington Civilizations According to Huntington civilizations are the highest