



Causal Analysis
o When we say ‘X caused Y’ we mean:
1. X and Y exist independently
2. X precedes Y temporally
3. But for X, Y would not occur
o Determined vs. Probable
 Probable – Relaxes condition #3
 Social Science looks for ‘probable’ causes
 WE SHOULD TAKE CAUSALITY SERIOUSLY AND CONSERVATIVELY
 Also possibility of ‘chance’ or ‘contingency’ (dumb luck, randomness, see
WWII lecture)
Causal analysis in International Relations
o Look at important recurring cross-national events (war, genocide, famine, global
recessions, peace conferences, migration, climate change)
o Analyze which factors predict the occurrence of that particular event
o ‘More of X’ = Increased likelihood of Y happening
 Or ‘Y event happened because of X’ (ie: end of Pacific War)
o Provide a theoretical explanation (causal ‘mechanism’) for the relationship
Organizing Causes, and methods for demonstration
o ‘Deep-Intermediate-Precipitating/Proximate’
 Good for ‘single event’ explanation
 Temporal (and even spatial) distance from an event, with deep being
causally strongest
o ‘Levels-of-Analysis’ (Usually three):
1. Systemic-International
2. State-Domestic
3. Individual
 Where the ‘X’ comes from that causes ‘Y’
o Methods and data: what counts as ‘evidence’ for that causal connection?
 Quantitative analysis – show two variables ‘correlating’ that may be
causal, with an explanation, controlling for other potential variables
 Qualitative analysis – demonstrate the ‘causal mechanism’ through case
studies, historical documents, structured comparison
Caveats
1. Probabilistic and usually not ‘singular’
a. Rarely a ‘silver bullet’ X, or explanation
2. Some ‘theories’ operate through more than one level of analysis, ie:
a. Democratic Peace Theory (Theory section)
b. Generational Analysis (History section)
3. Causal ‘narratives’ (later in lecture)
a. The politics and even emotional resonance, of causal ‘stories’
Atomic Bombs


Pre-1945
o August 2, 1939: Einstein-Szilard letter
o October 1939: Advisor Committee on Uranium formed (precursor to Manhattan
project)
o Dec 7, 1941: Japan attacks Pearl Harbor
1945, Timeline
o February 4-11: Yalta Conference
o May 8: (VE Day), German surrender
o July 16: Trinity test, New Mexico
o July 17-Aug 2: Potsdam Conference
o Aug 6: Hiroshima bombing (‘Little Boy’)
o Aug 9: Nagasaki (‘Fat Man’)
 Between 110k and 210k died, incl radiation, across both attacks
o (also Aug 9): Soviets invade Manchuria
o Aug 15: Japan agrees to surrender (Hirohito radio broadcast)
o Sep 2: Formal surrender signed on deck of USS Missouri
Atomic Bombings: Four Clusters of Debates

1. Y and Outcome#1: Moral debate and counterfactual causality
The atomic bombs ‘Saved’ lives
o Two things here – how many lives, and whose lives?
o How would we demonstrate this?
o Nash: Operation Downfall, Kyushu/Olympic (Nov 1945), Honshu/Coronet (Spring
1946)
o Basis: Truman/Stimson were provided #’s by military to predict number of US
soldiers killed (500K, maybe a million, maybe more?)
o Problems:
 Nash on ProfBK podcast: numbers were ‘all over the place’ and/or much
smaller (~62k)
 Miles, 1985 International Security article, uses own estimates based on
Luzon, Okinawa, other Pacific battles (~20k)
 Revisionist account (1960s-80s) on why Japan might have
surrendered before that (see addendum)
Moral Debate, Bombs ‘saved lives’
Other options besides atomic bombs and invasion (Prof Nash on podcast):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Modify unconditional surrender (Keep Emperor)
Rely on ongoing Naval blockade and conventional bombing
Demonstration to Japanese dignitaries
Wait for and assess impact of Soviets’ entry
Further, whose lives would have been saved?




Operation Ketsu Go: Japanese civilians
o Volunteer Civilian Corps, mainly armed with swords/spears
Nash: US had amassed ‘largest fighting force around Japan in human history’
Nash: ‘Still a sound moral reason’ to use bombs in context of that wartime
And yet…
Fortune survey of US respondents, Fall 1945:
Which of these comes cloest to describing how you feel about our use of atomic bombs
on Japan?




It should not have been used at all (4.5%);
We should have dropped one first on some unpopulated region to show the
Japanese its power, and dropped a second on a city in Japan only if they had not
surrendered by then (13.8%)
We should have done just what we did (53.5%)
We should have quickly used many more of them before Japan had a chance to
surrender (22.7%)
Atomic Bombings: Debates
2. Y/Outcome #2:
 Bombs ‘caused Japan to surrender
 Again, what do we need to demonstrate this causal connection?
 However… Rufus Miles (1985 article); Rober Pape (1993 article), Tsuyoshi
Hasegawa (2005 book), and Prof Nash on podcast:
o Bombs weren’t the only factor for Japanese surrender
 Soviet entry (also Aug 9, sweep across Manchuria)
 Keep emperor
 If so, this implicates
1: ‘logic’ of deterrence

Maybe countries can withstand nuke attacks??
2: Japanese ‘victimization’
Causal ‘Narratives’ and Politics


Whether causality ‘actually’ happens in politics or not, causal narratives happen all the
time
Focus for some IR scholars, then, is on the political function/role of a causal story
Other examples:



How and why did the Cold War end?
What explains migration patterns at US Southern border (or in Europe, or across Global
South)?
Why are there far less manufacturing jobs in US now and than 50 years ago?
When we provide a causal narrative, we’re making a political argument
Narratives that we (even fervently) believe, are also important for IDENTITY, can be
emotionally resonant (and reassuring)

Stories we tell reflect/shape who we are
3. Causal Narratives and atomic bombings
a. Atomic bomb leading to surrender: importance of military force as ultimate
arbiter/determinant of victory
 Military power bypasses politics
 Those that accept this ‘meta-narrative’ tend to apply it to other contexts
b. Moral argument of causal narrative that it ‘saved lives’: maintains WWII for the US as
‘good war’
c. (im)moral argument of atomic bombings against civilians: mains for Japan that it was the
‘victim’
d. What causal ‘primacy’ do nukes have?
 Tactical (battlefield) v. Strategic (Mutually Assured Destruction)
 Former means they are part of an overall war effort, just an extension of bombing
campaigns (ie, an extreme form of firebombing)
 Latter means they have causal effects on war as a whole (so, make ‘biggest’ bomb
you can, H-bomb, Oppenheimer, ‘super’)
Atomic bombings: debates
3. Science and (international) politics
 If scientists (Oppenheimer) created the atomic bombs and those (in part) caused end
of WWII, but also other effects, who is responsible for that?
 Role of science in international politics?
 Should scientist ‘speak out’? Or stay functionally specialized?
 Also role of politics in science
o Global Public Health section, Mbeki, HIV, and counter-epistemic community
(Youde reading)
o Nash: Hitler and Germany’s anti-Semitism setback nuclear program
 German exiles escape to US
Addendum – Rufus Miles, 1985 IS article