Week 4
Nuclear weapons and weapons of peace/ deterrence
Iran had nuclear deterrent no way US or Israel would attack Iran
Middle east had a nuclear deterrent it would be more peaceful
Problem → possibility there will be nuclear use
Conventional war
If Iran acquire nuclear weapons → cause 3 or more countries in region to also get nuclear weapons Saudi Arabia, Emirates, Turkey, Egypt
Will be afraid of Iran nuclear blackmail
Would set off a chain of nuclear weapons states
Iranians does not have the possibility of blackmail→ no country with nuclear weapons can blackmail another country with nuclear weapons
There is no evidence
US extended nuclear umbrella over Turkey and Saudi Arabia → making it very clear they can’t blackmail anybody
More countries have weapons→ more likely someone will use them
Argues existing instability created by Israel → has created an imbalance and would leave a continued imbalance in region
Saudan Hussam invasion 1990
Arab Spring
Syrian Civil War
US and Israel would not be threatening Iran if they had nuclear weapons
IS NUCLEAR ZERO THE BEST OPTION
Most dangerous nuclear threats to US→ terrorist + new nuclear powers + spread of nuclear weapons to new states and indirectly to terrorist orgs
If Iran and Syria get nuclear weapons→ danger that terrorists will get their hands on one will clearly increase
To achieve global zero→ necessary that all states have increased confidence that final disarmament agreement will be enforced + new nuclear proliferator will not be tolerated
There will still be latent form of nuclear deterrence even if nuclear disarmed world
Nuclear weapons free world will not be free of conflicts of national interest
Getting rid of nuclear weapons that have caused 65 years of peace would have an effect
Building a conventional deterrence against US is impossible
Nuclear weapons are the only weapons capable of dissuading the US from working its will on other nations
If there was an agreement to go zero leaders would cheat→ nuclear weapons are small and light → easy to hide and move in small vans and boats
Ban on nuclear weapons would be impossible to enforce bc countries would be tempted to cheat → would lead to a scramble
Those who like peace should love nuclear weapons
They work against their own use
Countries that have nuclear weapons no matter who (irrational or mean) do not launch attacks on others let alone nuclear ones
Countries worry about surviving/ being annihilated
Nuclear weapons are a mixed blessing
Most countries feel sufficiently secure without adding nuclear weapons to their conventional arsenals
CHAPTER 4 NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND NUCLEAR AGES
Reason states have chosen to develop bomb mixed from traditional security + influence of domestic politics and norms, and the importance of national identity to the role played by tech
More states building nuclear weapons→ horizontal proliferation
Challenges posed by vertical proliferation→ increases in quantity and quality of nuclear weapons by states that already have them
CHOOSING TO BUILD OR NOR TO BUILD THE BOMB
Political leaders and governments choose to build and keep nuclear weapons bc they believe that this is the only way or the best way to ensure national security against external threats in a dangerous international system
National security considerations dictate that nuclear weapons are a liability more than an asset bc they turn country into a target
Some states have decided not to acquire or build nuclear weapons bc of national security, economic reasons, or political/moral reasons even bc of the growing normative and legal taboo against nuclear weapons
Theory of Strategic Culture → each state may experience, understand and respond to the external threat environment in different ways as a result of their specific strategic culture
VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL PROLIFERATION
Approximately 128,000 nuclear weapons have been built since 1945 until early 1998 only the US, Russia, UK, France, and China
98% of these weapons built by US or Soviet Union b/w 1945-1991
Total global stockpiles of nuclear weapons peeked in 1986 at about 69,368 warheads with about 50% in Russia
Nuclear inventories expanded (vertical proliferation) during 1950s-60s→ warheads have decreased
Increase in the number of states with nuclear (horizontal proliferation) made relatively little difference to the overall number of nuclear weapons in the world
Threats posed by horizontal proliferation requires enhanced counter proliferation and non-proliferation efforts while preventing vertical proliferation requires a greater push for nuclear arms control, reductions, and possibly disarmament
Balance b/w nuclear non-proliferation of nuclear disarmament key problem in NPT
THE CONCEPT OF NUCLEAR AGES
1st Nuclear Age→ dominated by vertical proliferation concerns driven by Cold War b/w 1945 and 1991
2nd Nuclear Age → after the end of Cold War; risks of horizontal nuclear weapons proliferation to more actors and new nuclear challenges in South Asia, Northeast Asia and the Middle East came to dominate
Control for 1st Nuclear Age → MAD and secure second strike capabilities + nuclear arms control
2nd Nuclear Age → characterised by spread of bomb and bomb related tech to new actors in a more fluid and nuanced international environment
Greatest risk regional instability in Middle East or South or Northeast Asia → exacerbated by spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction tech
Spread of bombs + new means to build and deliver has changed central dynamics of global nuclear order
NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION DEBATE: OPTIMISTS AND PESSIMISTS
Proliferation optimists hold that horizontal nuclear proliferation should not necessarily be views as automatically destabilizing
Proliferation pessimists → horizontal nuclear proliferation can only ever lead to an increase in nuclear dangers and the possibility of nuclear use
Factors that make it potentially dangerous → growth of threat posed by terrorism and illicit nuclear networks, possibility of nuclear accidents, difficulties of civilian control and safe and secure command and control of nuclear weapons, spectre of preventive war against aspirant nuclear states, building survivable second strike forces
Focus on the problems of organisational culture and the fact that new nuclear actors are perhaps more likely to experience nuclear accidents
Nuclear latency → state has the theoretical capability to produce nuclear weapons but has chosen not to
AMERICA NEEDS A DEAD HAND MORE THAN EVER
US has not expanded arsenal by a single weapon
Today US is behind China and Russia as they are both modernizing and expanding their nuclear arsenals → gap increases coercive power Russia and China have to coerce the US backing down from aggression
US needs a dead hand system → detect inbound attack quickly than current system, give president ability to respond rapidly, and ensure field forces receive president’s orders
Decline in US arsenal in comparison to Russia, China, and North Korea → system is a necessity bc it complicate adversary calculation when contemplating a nuclear strike on the US
Rational Behavior Model → AI is used in components of the system related to understanding sensor input
Top level decision is performed by pre-planning in order to develop a set of scenarios
Soviet created Perimeter to deter the US from targeting the Soviet
AI system would speed up the detect, decide, and direct process but it should also aid the president in improving decision making
AI enabled nuclear command, control, and communications system with the ability to speed up decision making or respond is one way to address problem→ Russia, China, and North Korea expansion arsenals
WHY DO STATES BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS?
Nations develop nuclear weapons to enhance their security by deterring potential enemies from attacks + relies on belief that possessing nuclear capabilities prevent others from initiating conflicts
Nuclear weapons serve as power and national prestige; assert status on global stage and gain influence in international affairs
Domestic legitimacy and rally public support; relevant in democracies where public opinion and politics are significant roles
Existing nuclear powers and unstable environments; states perceive a need to acquire nuclear weapons as a means of balancing power or ensuring regional stability
Building nuclear weapons requires advanced tech capabilities and state may pursue them for technological development and scientific advancement