Week 8th Powerpoint

War

Definition

  • War is defined as organized violence between political entities.

  • Interstate war is quantified as 1,000 battle deaths per year in most datasets.

Causes of War

  • The causes of war present the central question in mainstream International Relations (IR).

  • Causes of wars can be classified into:

    1. Systemic level causes

    2. Domestic level causes

    3. Individual level causes

Nuclear Weapons

Introduction

  1. Nuclear Deterrence

  2. Critiques

  3. The Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons

Realism

Theories of Realism

Defensive Realism

  • Core Belief: State interest is primarily survival.

  • Security Dilemma: The pursuit of security may lead to war through a misunderstanding of intentions.

Offensive Realism

  • Core Belief: State interest is power maximization.

  • Outcome: Power maximization can lead to war.

Bargaining Theory

Game Types

  • Mixed-Motive Game: Interaction in which players have both conflicting and shared interests.

  • Coordination Game: users can achieve better outcomes through cooperation.

  • Zero-Sum Game: Any gain by one player results in a loss for the other player.

Example of a Mixed-Motive Game

Player A

Player B

Outcome

10

10

Both cooperate

2

2

Both conflict

0

0

No conflict

Cost of War

  • War is considered a sub-optimal outcome due to its high costs; often achieving a negotiated bargain is seen as preferable.

Bargaining Range

  • No Range: War is likely.

  • Small Range: War is moderately likely.

  • Large Range: War is unlikely.

    • Visual representation of bargaining ranges illustrating State A’s and State B’s ideal outcomes and acceptable outcomes.

Bargaining Failures

Types of Bargaining Failures

  1. Incentives to Misrepresent (Bluffing):

    • States possess incomplete information about each other's interests, leading to incentives for misrepresentation and possibly war.

  2. Commitment Problems:

    • Arises when states cannot make credible promises that they won’t revise the deal later.

    • Factors increasing this: not having authority overseeing the deal, rapidly changing power distribution.

    • Suggested solutions include strong language, third-party involvement, legal commitments, and observing past behaviors.

  3. Indivisibility:

    • Concern about indivisible goods, which are either accepted entirely or not at all (e.g., certain territories or sacred spaces).

    • Suggested resolution is creativity in negotiations, defining social constructs around the goods.

Domestic Groups and Influence (Liberalism/Marxism)

  • Various groups within a state have their vested interests in war, e.g.:

    • The military-industrial complex.

    • Economic groups (e.g., oil and agricultural sectors).

    • Ethnic interest groups (e.g., Cuban Americans during the Bay of Pigs Invasion).

  • The influence of these domestic actors depends on political institutions, such as lobbying rules and electoral systems.

Bureaucratic Politics

  • Graham Allison's 1971 work, The Essence of Decision, posited that the state behaves as a collection of various agencies and ministries, each with distinct interests.

  • The decision-making process is affected by the stance of these agencies, which can be hawkish or dovish.

  • Example cited: The Excomm during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Constructivism and Critical Theories

  • Examination of propaganda and representation related to war.

Individual Level Causes

Characteristics of Decision-Makers

  • Traits leading to a higher likelihood of accepting war costs.

  • Concepts include:

    • Bounded Rationality: The limits of rational decision making.

    • Psychological Factors: Including confirmation bias, misperceptions, overestimating hostility, and influences such as groupthink.

Diversionary Theory of War

Definition

  • This theory posits that leaders may initiate conflict to divert attention from domestic problems and enhance popularity.

  • Example given: The Falklands War (1982).

  • The evidence supporting this theory is noted as interesting yet inconclusive.

Nuclear Weapons and the State of Nuclear Proliferation

Timeline of Initial Proliferation

  • Nuclear weapons emerged initially with the US in 1945, with further developments into Russia (USSR) by 1949, the UK (1952), France (1960), and China (1964).

Second Wave of Proliferation

  • Following that, Israel developed an arsenal (kept ambiguous), India (1974), Pakistan (1998), and North Korea (2006).

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Summary

  • The NPT acknowledges nuclear weapons states (NWS) and sets guidelines to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.

  • Countries involved include:

    • United States: First tested nuclear weapons in 1945; joined NPT in 1968.

    • UK: Tested first in 1952; joined NPT in 1968.

    • France: First explosion in 1960; joined NPT in 1992.

    • Israel: Implies possession without confirmation.

    • Russia: As the USSR had nuclear tests in 1949; joined NPT in 1968.

    • Other states – India, Pakistan, and North Korea are noted for their statuses relating to the treaty.

Understanding Nuclear Weapons

Strategic Considerations

  • Nuclear weapons cannot be utilized like conventional weapons due to prohibitive costs for warfare.

  • The strategic implications include:

    • An unwilling exchange of hostages between nuclear powers.

    • The notion that war among nuclear states leads to mutually assured destruction (MAD).

  • Objective of nuclear deterrence is the threat of nuclear retaliation to prevent conflicts.

Mechanisms of Deterrence

  1. Second-Strike Capability: Ensuring that capacity for retaliation exists post-first strike. Details:

    • Airborne, land-based, and sea-based strategic deterrents.

  2. Publicized Capability: Deterrence effectiveness is contingent on clarity and credibility of second-strike threat.

  3. Rationality in States: States act rationally under nuclear ordering.

Perspectives on Nuclear Deterrence

Optimist View

  • Nuclear states are viewed as cautious and therefore choose to avoid risky behaviors when facing other nuclear states. This leads to a **security dilemma **that is seen as less acute and where smaller states can effectively deter larger powers, ultimately contributing to overall stability.

Inventory of Nuclear Warheads (1945 - 2014)

  • Data itemizes the number of nuclear warheads among nuclear powers across the years, detailing fluctuations.

Conclusion: The Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons Since 1945

  • The consistent non-use of nuclear weapons since 1945 is not fully explained under the theory of nuclear deterrence alone.

  • Alternative theories such as the notion of a nuclear taboo are proposed (referenced Tannenwald 2018).

Ethical and Practical Considerations in Abolishing Nuclear Weapons

  • The discourse on the potential abolition of nuclear weapons is filled with ethical considerations focused on civilian lives and the astronomically high costs associated with maintaining such arsenals.

  • Risks related to deterrence must also be discussed, providing a broader context about nuclear weapons in international security.