Nuclear Weapons

"Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability" - Waltz

Iran getting nuclear capabilities is probably the best solution in the Middle East - bring peace and stability Israel with nuclear capability have prolonged a power imbalance that is unsustainable in the long term - Israel's proven ability to strike potential nuclear rivals with impunity has inevitably made its enemies anxious to develop the means to prevent Israel from doing so again Iranian regime is rational and don't want self destruction: MAD theory couldn't likely transfer to terrorists without being caught? slowdown in emergence of nuclear states - unlikely more become nuclear in ME Israel and Iran will deter each other if Iran goes nuclear - no other country in region will feel the need/incentive for nuclear capability - more stable middle east keep up diplomacy and communication with iran

Proliferation Debates

- Is it okay if more states develop nuclear capabilities? - Biological weapons - Fear that technology is spreading - suitcase bombs Logic of nuclear weapon use that came about in cold war when likelihood of using nuclear weapons was at its highest What is offense and defense? - Offense is defense and defense is offense - Have weapons but won't use them, - Defense: iron dome, or missile defense system

MAD Theory

1960s development - until then not many countries had nuclear capabilities - many people developing nuclear strategies (US thinktanks, RAND) Mutual Assured Destruction theory Deterrence based on each actor dies - make sure each side is deterrable - each side has no better option than to back down Don't do it because it would END THE WORLD. - stakes here are higher than with conventional deterrence - use it to advantage Having just 1 nuke is unstable - 1 nuke is easier to take out than 2, can't be sure it'll work - want enough to avoid not being taken out with one stroke - Have to build arsenals to build a credible threat - for deterrence to work Credibility about 2 components - Capability - Reputation/willingness - harder to show Deterrence - threaten someone else to not doing something else because or else you will die Why you need to show some of your nukes - can't be a credible threat if no one knows you have that capability Hard because we don't have a ton of evidence that people have the weapons

"Would China Go Nuclear? Assessing the Risk of Chinese Nuclear Escalation in a Conventional War with the United States" - Talmadge

Chinese nuclear escalation in the event of a conventional war with the US is a significant risk - China would reasonably fear that the US might be attempting conventional counterforce or nuclear and then engage in limited nuclear escalation to gain military advantage or coercive leverage

NUTs Theory

Deterrence theory - goal is to prevent the world from ending Nuclear Utilization Theory - might be able to use nuclear weapons and see tomorrow NUTs theorists say that the MAD theorists are in a bad cycle because they assume rationality - challenge rationality assumption Both want deterrence However, NUTs theorists prefer to base deterrence on deterrence on vehement denial or damaged limitation - goal is to destroy enemy weapons before they explode in one's territory - limited win-them-all nuclear attack, should provide deterrence Targeting counterforce targets (Someone else's military capabilities - weapon silos, facilities) - I actually have more and better weapons and I'm willing to take you out, but I'm willing to use counterforce because the world won't be over tomorrow - demonstrate via targeting that we imagine a day after tomorrow - Do like ballistic missile strategy - fits with damage denial strategy - allows to destroy opponents weapons - less risk of retaliation - Reagan's SDI - star wars - strategic defense initiative - US puts a lot of money to shoot down weapons before they enter US airspace

MAD Theory p. 2

Deterrence through punishment Not tit for tat diplomacy - you do something to me, I respond in kind - escalation takes a lot longer - Here, with nuclear weapons you cannot do this - don't have a low scale nuclear weapon 2nd strike capability - how many nukes should you have? - Enough to have a second strike capability - are you still safe to hit back against an adversary who attacks - retaliate and inflict damage on another opponent is what keeps the peace - no matter how big or how many nuclear weapons you have - neither side could win a nuclear war is the hope Assumes state's leaders are rational - cost-benefit analysis to make a decision that is best for X Countervalue targets: Population center - big cities MAD Theory aims at countervalue because this doesn't ruin their counterforce capabilities - creating stability - often tell people they are aiming here - world is more likely to be impacted by hitting people then military stuff For much of cold war, MAD was the logic and some say it's still the US's logic today, but that is hard to test

notes

Weird - both offensive and defensive weapons, crazy destructive Only have been used once - hiroshima and nagasaki Warhead - creates explosion - one thing to have warhead, another thing to be able to deliver it - Ex. North Korea - have nukes, but not an effective way to use them Two theories - rooted in deterrence - held during the cold war - what will happen after the cold war? - debate over whether end of cold war meant end of a nuclear world (disarmament) and some who argued for increased armament - theories nowadays not as clean cut - not just nuclear weapons, but concerns over WMDs in general