Nuclear Deterrence Why Don t We Use Our Nuclear Weapons A Destructiveness Not necessarily the problem Nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapons available Problem Aren t weapons supposed to be destructive There will always be an evolution of weapons especially since Industrialization to be more sophisticated and accurate German bombing of Warsaw WWII Targeted at civilians Firebombing dropping incendiary device excessive temperature of 2 000 degrees F everything instantly catches fire targeted civilians US 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 incorrect No hard core reaction because at war did what you had to do to win war Hiroshima 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 cid 224 do or die cid 224 political leaders knew Japan would not surrender in conventional battle cid 224 saw nuclear bomb as less destructive option Vast US majority approved of attacks response to Pearl Harbor Initially no problem with destruction Continued to develop more destructive nonnuclear weapons post WWII i e Daisy Cutter bomb can explode in the air impact expands more destructive B Lack of Opportunity No the world has been in a constant state of war since WWII We have had other opportunities to use nuclear weapons The fact that the US has nuclear abilities has not deterred others form waging war with the US C Battlefield Utility No we have other ways to use nuclear technology Tactical nuclear weapons on the ground battlefield i e Submarines land mines bunker busters Can use nuclear technology in a smaller manner with smaller impact US has not used them Depleted uranium durable coating for weapons Not used for radioactive means D They re Wrong Immoral Maybe nuclear weapons too destructive Backlash using weapons following WWII Audience costs reputation tarnished if used Difference between firebombing and nuclear weapons is the mushroom cloud Similar damage to land damage to people similar at a glance Human Tragedy of Hiroshima Changed opinion Radiation danger realized later not immediately 70 000 people died on impact End of 1945 140 000 people died 1950 200 000 people died Does not include increased rate of birth defects 2 All a direct result of radiation During 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 were Had much more than immediate effects Now 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 consequences Nuclear fall out what if radiation reached the US New Norm of Deterrence Balance of terror US and USSR nuclear powers Both sides can inflict mass destruction Effects on Policy A NPT 1968 Not going to ban nuclear weapons distrust but will control who has them and limit their development Enforced via UN sanctions All powers must be willing to undergo inspections and costs B Biological 1972 and Chemical Weapons 1993 Also target the spread of these C Disarmament Liberals Use diplomacy to find peaceful conventional ways to settle disputes Problem Realist How do we know if all countries disarm Getting rid of weapons will increase security dilemma D Deterrence via Extreme Build Up 3 Offensive realists What US and USSR did during Cold War Assumed that nuclear weapons would become the norm of warfare Many weapons Must survive first strike Nuclear triad land air and sea capabilities E Deterrence via Arms Control and MAD Defensive realists Do not get rid of weapons just make sure everyone has same capabilities Will have mutual vulnerability in an attack mutually assured destruction Risk too high Key maintaining vulnerability cid 224 reducing security dilemma restrains politicians MAD holds everyone back Also have to maintain 2nd strike capabilities otherwise not mutually assured destruction Arms Control History 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty prevent atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons Do not contaminate the atmosphere 1968 NPT Everyone can have peaceful nuclear technology i e energy Non nuclear powers agree that they will not seek nuclear weapons 4 1968 SALT Strategic Arms Limitation Talks USSR and US discuss limits for each side 1972 ABM Treaty Antiballistic Missile Treaty Limited ICBM Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Interceptors designed to protect from attack cid 224 maintaining mutual vulnerability risks are too high Reagan defied ICBM with SDI Strategic Defense Initiative Star Wars put missile interceptors into space cid 224 neither US or USSR were actually capable Increased defense capabilities reduce vulnerability George 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 II Looking at further limiting nuclear capabilities and delivery systems Not signed by Congress 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty No more testing stop continued development of new nuclear weapons 1990s START Strategic Arms Reduction Talks 1991 93 97 Reductions in number of nuclear weapons From MAD to MAP mutually assured protection Reduce offensive nuclear capabilities at a time where we had increased nuclear defensive capabilities Critics powers with most defensive capabilities have advantage and can become offensive 5 Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear Taboo Nina Tannenwald Taboo to even suggest using nuclear weapons Meaning of Proliferation Proliferation the spread of offensive nuclear capabilities to non NPT powers Talking about Iran North Korea India etc NPT will not develop offensive or defensive nuclear technology Consequences if violated Enforced by UN not US Countries who defy NPT are problems cid 224 motives are offensive not defensive red flag dangerous Deterrence and Small New States Nuclear weapons deterrence applied well in Cold War context but outside of that context we have new states cid 224 maybe risky for them to have weapons A Preconditions for Possessing Nuclear Weapons 1 Strong stable government 2 Sophisticated technology 3 Advanced communication system 4 Large stock piles spread out 5 Precautions built into the system along with good security 6 Second
View Full Document
Unlocking...