EXAM 3 FINAL Nuclear Weapons Deterrence Proliferation Why don t we use nukes o Nukes are destructive But so are tanks artillery bombs Weapons are designed to be destructive o Big change in how we ve approached warfare since the world wars Most destructive and only total wars the world has seen Not fought a war on that scale since WWII Bombing of civilians was accepted as something you have to do Break moral of enemy population and attain victory Firebombing incendiary devices to do even more damage Dresden Allies bombing of germans Tokyo US exclusively bombed Death toll btwn 80 000 120 000 civilians Conventional bombing techniques norm of warfare Napalm korea Vietnam Continued to use similar tactics in wars that followed total wars Daisy cutter US ground Device placed on bomb that detonates before it hits the More destructive ground doesn t absorb impact o Battlefield Utility energy Tactical nuclear weapons Nuclear warhead missles US bunker busting in Afghanistan not true Audience costs as a deterrent Democracy made up of people who don t support their use o They re wrong immoral Idea didn t exist at time of conception Crosses moral boundary took hold across the globe Individuals and states beginning to condemn their use Norm of Non Use nuclear taboo Nina Tannenwald taboo to even talk about using them just don t go there when we do have to threaten use of force never threaten nuclear force discussion seen as taboo Hiroshima and Nagasaki 80 of American public supported use of atomic bomb against Japan shortly after war ended context been in long war o Japan attacked us o Japan not quick to surrender meant very bloody fight o Had a weapon that could end the war Aftermath changed opinions about weapon Realized immorality in months and years after At first glance Atomic bombing doesn t look any different than Fire bombing Shadows burned into the walls Nuclear weapons continued to kill beyond the WWII war o Impact death toll 70 000 o By the end of 1945 145 000 o Up to 1950 200 000 o Radiation Years later women giving birth to horribly deformed children Not been hit by fire bombing wanted to know what atomic bomb could do Trying to turn enemy into friend after war ended but people kept dying Concern of atmospheric contamination Radioactive fallout Potential of contaminating environment making life more difficult even after conflict is over Post Japan see shift over to norm of non use Major powers still developed them Deterrence possession of nukes play key feature in deterrence Cold war balance of power with balance of terror Effects on policy o Extend non use to any weapons of unconventional capacity Impacts relations between US and USSR Seek ways to either ban or control unconventional weapons Neither US or USSR willing to ban nukes o NPT 1968 Trying to prevent proliferation Keep everyone from becoming nuclear power Every power signed except for India Pakistan Israel and South Sudan NK signed then pulled out Commits all signatory powers to monitoring o Biological weapons treated 1978 Countries get together wont use bio weapons o Chemical weapons conference 1993 Syria may have used chem weapons against its own citizens o Disarmament vs deterrence Liberal approach disarmament No good for US and USSR Deterrence arm to the hilt As many weapons as they could have Went from atom bomb to hydrogen bomb o Needed a lot of nukes and needed to be able to defend ourselves from a nuclear attack Capable of initiating the first strike i e long range missiles Second strike capability they hit us we hit back Arms control Nukes needed to be dispersed Nuclear Triad nukes on land air and sea o Nuclear submarines o Not talking about disarming reducing the number we have downsizing Don t work on developing new tech Control process o Balance of capabilities actively seeking to be more evenly matched Mutual vulnerability equal power to destroy the other and maintain vulnerability to each other Mutual assured destruction MAD one side pushes the button both are done Maintaining vulnerability you wont be the one to hit the button first o Ultimately wins out in debates Build up is counterproductive and risky Arms control history o 1963 partial test ban treaty both agree no atmospheric testing o 1968 NPT o 1968 SALT I strategic arms limitation talks reducing number of weapons we have limiting intercontinental ballistic missile interceptors ICBM delivery system How you get your nukes to hit your enemy Limit our ability to defend ourselves against nuclear attack Maintain mutual vulnerability Challenged by Reagan revitalized cold war contest Wanted interceptor system in space This is when it become obvious they couldn t keep up George Bush maintained by Obama Ensure protection of US against rogue nuclear powers o 1972 ABM Treaty limited ICBM interceptors like North Korea anti ballistic missile treaty component of SALT I o 1979 SALT II reduce of nuclear weapons US congress failed to ratify o 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Theory wont test nukes AT ALL if we cant test we cant develop new ones o 1990s START 91 93 97 limit development of new ICBM s new ICBMs mean longer strike distance capabilities strategic arms reduction talks instead of limiting defensive increasing defensive measures reducing offensive capabilities o SALT talks largely between US and USSR o Opened dialogue btwn US and USSR to work together Helped to maintain weapons and have a logical process Helped maintain deterrence World is safest today b c of deterrence Nuclear Proliferation o Spread of offensive nuclear technology to non NPT nuclear weapon states o Only 5 nuclear weapon states US France GB Russia China Permanent UN security council members b c of o Motives International norm of non use why do countries need to become nuclear weapon state Countries that have pursued nukes are countries we aren t very sure about North Korea Iran regime very aggressive towards Israel o Realist argument mearshimer offensive realist good idea for euro powers to have nukes b c they all have deterrence Kenneth waltz says good idea for Iran to be nuke power b c balance with israel Weak states new states shouldn t have nukes Problematic increases secure dilemmas and chances of war To actually have deterrence need to meet certain criteria major powers Strong stable government Corrupt dictatorships no bueno for nukes Advanced tech North korea doesn t have advanced tech Possess modern communication Control weapons Large stockpiles that are dispersed for second strike
View Full Document
Unlocking...