INR 3003 PART III Nuclear Weapons Deterrence 25 03 2014 I Why don t we use our nuclear weapons A Destructiveness Not a sufficient answer isn t that the purpose destroy Are designed to give us advantage in times of war Firebombing Daisy Cutters considered a way to bring the enemy out of the war Beating it s moral targeting civilian populations Daisy Cutter is the device that ensures it explodes before touching the ground massive horizontal spread more destructive the ground will not absorb as much energy Most weapons are destructive Nuclears cannot be used tactically false After WWII we saw the development of tactical nuclear weapons B Battlefield Utility Tactical Nuclear Weapons and Depleted Uranium Smaller impact than the big bomb We can modify artillery things like torpedoes More of a limited impact but more tactical US accused for using bunker busting tactical nuclear weapons in Afghanistan What US has used is depleted Uranium in armor coating for things like artillery shells mines grenades does leave minor radioactive contamination Its not a weapon its used for armors ammunition That we can t use them tactically is not a reason why we haven t used nuclear weapons C They re Wrong Immoral After WWII public opinion stared to change globally Turned against these weapons though not immediately 80 of the US population agreed with the atomic bombings Common thinking was that this is the future Everybody else wanted it D A shift in World Opinion Occurs Human Tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki Instead a new norm developed Universal rejection of ever using these weapons again Comparing the destructiveness of impact damage you don t really see much difference between Fire bombing and nuclear bombing aside from Mushroom clouds shadows burned into walls Universal rejection of ever using these weapons again Comparing the destructiveness of impact damage you don t really see much difference between Fire bombing and nuclear bombing aside from Mushroom clouds shadows burned into walls Human tragedy it went beyond war People were still dying years later Hiroshima on impact death toll estimated at 70 000 by the end of 1945 that number had doubled 1950 death toll 200 000 Death in Peacetime unacceptable Discovered effects of radiation on people children that weren t even alive suffered decline of intelligence in those areas Worried about atmospheric contamination Still pursued by countries II New Norms of Deterrence Balance of Terror destruction of both sides Brought stability according to many Norms impacted policy and acted to restrain politicians and militaries from considering their use It will go on to all weapons that are considered exceptional Attacks on civilians are taboo III Effects on Policy banning was not an option A NPT 1968 1 committed to not use them 2 prevent proliferation non nuclear powers were committed to non development enforced through monitoring Concern today is nuclear terrorism B Biological 1972 and Chemical Weapons Convention 1993 If you agree you need to destroy them Find a way to do it efficiently without impact on populations C Approaches to Controlling the Possession of Nuclear Weapons 1 Disarmament weren t willing to disarm US Soviets liberal proposal and commit to diplomacy and communication 2 Deterrence via Extreme Build up multifaceted early cold war years need to have a lot of nuclear weapons have to be able to defend against any sort of an attack and have to have the ability to strike back second strike ability Nuclear Triad to do this you have to have nuclear capabilities on land at see and in the air at all times to strike back It increases the security dilemma mindset started to change in the 60s 3 Deterrence via Arms Control MAD no more extreme build up Start to limit the size of arsenals reducing and limiting the development of new weapons as well Work to create a balance of capabilities Had to maintain our vulnerability to our enemy and the enemy to us Reduce our ability to defend ourselves against an attack If both were doing the same thing who would dare to pull the trigger Engaging in that type of war was suicidal Nothing to gain and absolutely everything to lose MAD Dominant strategy IV Arms Control History From MAD to MAP 1963 Partial Test Ban treaty 1968 NPT 1968 SALT I Strategic Arms Limitation Talks 1972 ABM Treaty limited Inter Continental Ballistic Missile interceptors Anti Ballistic Missile Treaty directly into MAD Bush ended ABM because of North Korea and Iran 1979 SALT II to limit the development of new ICBMs and a reduction on stockpiles It was not ratified Soviets went into Afghanistan 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty no testing of nuclear weapons what so ever 1990s START 1991 1993 1997 Strategic Arms Reduction Talks have been very influential in getting rid of a lot of nuclear weapons Emphasizing defensive capabilities over offensive capabilities Reagan idea see shift from MAD to MAP Mutual Assured Protection Reagan offered to give the soviets the technology 1972 Biological Weapons treaty 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention Strategic Defensive Initiative Nuclear Proliferation 27 03 2014 Nuclear Taboo Nina Tannenwald I Restrained us of even putting that on the table Leaders don t make that threat Taboo Reinforces morally wrong norm November 1950 US officer state department of Far East affairs issuing a warning military results same as other weapons but different on world opinion Still were sought after II Meaning of Proliferation spread of nuclear weapons or offensive nuclear technology Today specifically talk on countries not part of NPT who seek this tech Internationally agreed norm on not using so why do you need to develop it What are their motifs 1 Doing so in defiance of the international community also tend to exhibit aggressive or unstable characteristics Rogue States the aforementioned North Korea at one point were an NPT member in 2006 it tested their first nuclear weapon Have continued this program despite intense sanctions and opposition 2013 threatened to use nuclear weapons against the United States Threatened to attack Japan and invade South Korea It is not playing by the accepted norms and rules Iran another example It is an NPT member Irrational talk and threats coming out of Iran Threat of rogue states enhances Security Dilemma because they do not play by the rules US in defiance of NPT are those NATO nuclear power sharing like Greece Italy Turkey aren t this proliferation US we never handed control of them III Deterrence
View Full Document
Unlocking...