GOV 312L 1st Edition Lecture 13 Outline of Current Lecture I. Are nuclear weapons different?II. Elements of nuclear deterrenceIII. Total war and mutually assured destructionIV. How can threats to use nuclear weapons be credible?V. Mutually assured destruction and stabilityVI. Does nuclear proliferation stabilize or destabilize international politics?VII. The ethics of nuclear deterrence Current LectureElements of Deterrence- Defense and deterrence are different.- Defense is active measures to protect against harm- Deterrence is a threat of retaliation - “strike me down now, and i will come back stronger than ever- Elementso The conflict must be severeo There needs to be a rationality. The enemy must know what nuclear weaponscan do to themo Retaliatory threat, each side has to weather an attack, and then can attack back. “I can’t prevent an attack, but i will survive and tear you a new one”o Credibility - each side has to be able to follow through. If enemy doesn’t think you’ll strike back, then you done goofed- Nuclear weapons are different bc they are so destructive- It doesn’t protect and enhance the stateTotal war and Mutually Assured Destruction- Total war: “States would become the victims of war if weapons ever became so destructive that they placed at risk the purposes for which wars were being fought. Any resort to force, under such circumstances, could destroy what it was meant to defend” These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.- Churchill: “The new terror brings a certain element of equality in annihilation. Strangeas it may seem, it is to the universality of potential destruction that I think we may look with hope and even confidence” - Each side has the ability to survive and strike back. This acts as a great deterrence- Because nuclear war is destructive, no one can win. Fighting, serves no purpose. neither side has an incentive to start a war. All civilization will die- Eisenhower “if any war can escalate to nuclear war, then no wars. Might as well shoot everyone and then shoot yourself if a nuclear war happens.” - USSR had given Cuba nukes. Had we invaded Cuba, we’d be fuckedThe Central Problem of Credibility- Why do officials believe the nuclear threats if we know they probably won’t be used?- It’s because it’s threats vs. use- Target must believe that they would get attacked- Peace in the nuclear world depends on these beliefs on making credible threats- Do you have the will to execute the threat? Can you deliver on that threat? You willing to sacrifice cities like San Francisco to attack?Demonstrating Credibility: Capabilities- Some of the weapons systems are vulnerable and could lessen your deterrence capabilities if destroyed first- Now that we have invisible silos, AKA submarines, it’s hard for commies to fully take us down. Demonstrating Credibility: Irrevocable Commitments- US president’s are nice guys, usually don’t want to use nukes- So how do they show they’re the real deal?- They make tons of threats- JFK in cuba - “Nukes not allowed to stay in Cuba”- This is because presidents can get impeached if they don’t retaliate- Threats that leave something to chance: have bombers fly out and fly the border of the enemy. Then the president has no more control. Something could go wrong you know. Badabing Badaboom, aww we’re sorry russia, that was an accidental nuking of Moscow. - This is a way politician can demonstrate resolve. Demonstrating Credibility: Protecting Allies with Extended Deterrence- Cold War: US says they’d protect Western Europe with nukes from commies- Will US give up San Fran to Protect Paris though? Hell yeah- Soviets doubt credibility of US commitment, so they invade. If France doubt credibility, than they would just opt out and ask for neutralityDemonstrating Credibility: Recap- In a nuclear world, peace and/or stability rests on threats to engage in violence, not actual use of military force- Effectiveness of threats depends on credibility- Examined three aspects of credibility problemo Capabilitieso Importance of demonstrating (signaling) resolveo How protect allies- In a nuclear world, balance of resolve matters more than the balance of military powerMutually Assured Destruction- When both sides have second strike capability, neither side have an incentive to initiate conflict- If someone gets first strike capability, then you have imbalance, Like if you have missile defense system- Vulnerable states that had less technology can only act in two ways when bullied by nuclear super powero They start making more military stuff to overwhelm missile defenseo Preemptive strike on defense system- This is unbalancing. So This increases the possibility of war, ironically. Nuclear Proliferation: Stability or Instability?- Generally mean whether or not other countries should get nukes- Pessimist: More State with nukes means more risk as they’re not as stable as the US- Optimist: More nukes means limiting aggression because they are so destructiveNuclear Proliferation: Optimists- Kenneth Waltz- nukes generate tremendous caution in crises, deterrence limits aggression- Securing second strike capabilities is easy, just hide and bury themo Terrorists and commies can never know if they really got all our nukes- limits violence in war so that they don’t escalate too much fear retaliation by nuke. You shoot our soldiers, we nukes your ass.- States maintain control on nukesNuclear Proliferation: Pessimists- Scott Sagan- New entries to the nuclear club, may not have responsibility and integrityo They could sell to third parties- israel is scared of Iran getting nukes” Vulnerability during stage of weapons development may heighten preventative warNuclear Proliferation: US- strong national interest in preventing proliferation- Part of this stems from reasons cited by Sagan- Also, nuclear weapons great equalizer: blunts advantage of great powers (like the US) in conventional weapons- Freezes territorial status quo for nuclear armed states: cannot invade without riskingnuclear retaliation- Takes military coercion or threat of regime change off the table for the United States and other great powers- Compare “Axis of Evil”: Iran, Iraq, and North Korea- IIf don’t have