Debating Enormity
Nuclear Proliferation in the 21st Century
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k
Part 1: Debating International
Relations
What are we talking about?
• The “fiction” of the nation-state
• Series of “paradigms” which allow us to interpret
the meaning of events- the lens
• Treaty of Westphalia 1648 2 principles:
• Anarchy-no order, the state of nature
• Sovereignty- all decisions are made within
The Nation-State. Power is legitimate.
• Power is absolute within the nation-state
• Develop international law to regulate interactions
between nations
• States can declare war and make treaties
• Norms of BOUNDARIES are established
• Power rests with the sovereign state NOT the
sovereign
• Monopoly on the legitimate use of power
Security Dilemma
• Why do wars break out?
• Self-interest
• Competition
• Offense/defense misperception…arms races, first
strike as strategy
• Nation vs. state
Traditional Rules: Just War
Tradition
• Proper authority to use force only resides with the
state, not non-state actor
• Michael Walzer, JUST AND UNJUST WARS
• Jus ad bellum: rules that govern the justice of war
•
•
•
•
•
Having just cause
Being declared by a proper authority
Possessing right intention
Having a reasonable chance of success
The end being proportional to the means used
• Jus in bello: rules that govern just and fair conduct
in war
• Discrimination- who are legitimate targets in war?
Don’t attack indiscriminately-not non-combatants.
How can you tell the difference? How affect modern
targeting?
• Proportionality- how much force is morally
appropriate?
• Does WMD make the doctrine obsolete?
Realism
• Hans Morgenthau, POLITICS AMONG
NATIONS: The Struggle for Power & Peace, 1978.
• Hobbes. Machiavelli. George Kennan.
• A view of politics that stresses the competitive and
contractual side.
• Modern statesman Henry Kissinger. Leftist realists
include Noam Chomsky and Mark Laffey.
Realist Assumptions
• 1. the international system is anarchic. No actor
above states can enforce norms.
• 2. states are the most important actors.
• 3. all states within the system are unitary, rational
actors. Aim is maximizing self interest striving to
attain as many resources as possible. Want power
and national interest.
• 4. primary concern of all states is survival.
NeoRealism
• State is still the key actor but recognize growing role
of Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs),
Multinational Organizations and Multinational
Corporations.
• Kenneth Waltz, THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL
POLITICS, 1978…it is the international system
which is important. States behave in similar ways in
spite of form of government or diverse political
ideology.
• Growing interdependence model-Robert Keohane
and Joseph Nye.
• SOFT-POWER: ability to accomplish goals by
making them appear attractive, culture, values,
assistance.
• HARD POWER: military, economic means to
accomplish goals through coercive diplomacy,
sanctions, force.
• HEGEMONY- amount of power a state has =s
influence. Balance of power is how hegemony is
distributed. Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar.
• Charles Kindleberger, hegemonic stability theory,
stability of the system relies on a leader to develop
and enforce rules of the system
Liberalism/Internationalism
• The view of international politics which emphasizes
cooperation. Morality has a role to play.
• Immanuel Kant, PERPETUAL PEACE, 1795. Go
to war in self-defense.
• Democratic Peace Theory-Michael Doyle.
Democracies do not go to war against each other.
Why? Leaders are more responsible to people, more
likely to establish diplomatic institutions to resolve
tensions, less likely to view neighbors as hostile,
greater wealth to protect.
• Commercial Peace Theory-free trade pacifies
international relations, globalization scholars,
cosmopolitanism as cultural linkage. Status quo states
want to keep, revisionist states want change.
• 1. Humans are rational and we can consider basic
morality. UN Declaration.
• 2. Central feature is not anarchy, but harmony.
Cooperation is key element. Mutual interest not Self.
• 3. Government is necessary, but also NG role. Pluralism.
• 4. Individual liberty is respected, war disrupts natural
state
Critical Theorists
• Structuralists: Marxists…All politics is about
economics, elites prosper at expense of masses,
eventually system will collapse
• Post modernists: reject meta-narratives,must
deconstruct assumptions, threat construction
position- ex. Spanos, all truth is culturally
constructed, normalize some things and marginalize
others
Future of International
Relations?
• Whither the nation-state? Anachronism? Are we so
integrated war is suicidal?
• Global governance. Richard Falk, Samuel Kim, Saul
Mendlovitz, World Orders Model Project.
• Identity blues- Fukuyama THE END OF HISTORY,
1992. End of state violence, liberal democracy won, but
replaced by ethnic violence, war within states. Terrorism
has replaced war.
• What about WMDs? Walzer says makes just war concept
defunct. Nuclear, chemical, biological, radiological
weapons.
Part 2: Nuclear Relations
Basic Vocabulary
• HORIZONTAL proliferation refers to nation-states
that do not have, but are acquiring nuclear weapons
or developing the capability and materials for
producing them.
• VERTICAL proliferation refers to nation-states that
do possess nuclear weapons and are increasing their
stockpiles of these weapons, improving the technical
sophistication or reliability of their weapons, or
developing new weapons.
• Development of delivery mechanisms are also an
emerging issue.
Why do nations proliferate?
• Believe more “secure” with weapons.
• Prestige comes with being a member of the “nuclear
club”.
• Atmosphere of acquisition when neighbors acquire.
• Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD)
Good or Bad?
• Research: what are you looking for?
• Theodore B. Taylor
• Kenneth N. Waltz
Acquisition by Individuals or
Nonstate Entities
• Terrorism-actions intended to produce terror by
nonstate entities by the potential acquisition of
nuclear weapons.
• State sponsored terrorism, obtain fissile material
through loss, theft, or sale on blackmarket
• “dirty bombs” seeded explosive or incendiary bombs
that are technically radiological rather than nuclear
weapons.
Controlling Proliferation
• Manhattan Project scientists wanted use on
uninhabited island rather than civilian population
centers as demonstration, form Federation of
American Scientists and the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists.
• International Agreements reflected concern.
• Series of international and regional agreements.
Limited Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty
• LTBT 1963 after reported cancer dangers
• Prohibits nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere,
in space, or undersea.
• Tests since have been conducted underground or by
simulation.
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons
• 1968 NPT: most widely accepted arms control
agreement.
• 5 original nuclear-weapon states (US, Soviets, UK,
France, China) can’t transfer nuclear weapons, other
nuclear explosive devices, or their technology to any
non-nuclear states.
• Non-nuclear states who are parties undertake
avoidance of acquisition or production of weapons
or devices, in return for acquisition of nuclear
technologies for peaceful activities (like energy).
Must accept safeguards.
State of the World
• http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/nuclear_weapons
/framesource_maps.html
How to respond to prolif ? The
military option
• More than a dozen occasions nonnuclear weapons states have
been targeted with military force since 1941.
• 1942 British commandos attacked a German occupied site in
Norway
• Iran-Iraq War and aftermath
• 1991 Persian Gulf War US bombed numerous Iraqi nuclear
facilities
• Israeli bombings v Iraq and Syria
• Planned by Egypt, India/Pakistan, Soviets v. South Africa, US
v. China, international efforts to control North Korea and Iran
• Military option is more likely when a state is highly
threatened by the target state’s potential acquisition of
nuclear weapons
• Israel threatened by Iraq not Algeria
• US doesn’t attack UK in 1950
• Two main factors shape this threat perception: violent
interstate conflict and the proliferator’s regime type
• Highly authoritarian proliferators are more likely to be
attacked.
• ALL strikes to date have been against non-democratic states
• Fear of the non-transparent government
• Two additional factors- First…
• More likely to consider raids based on the likelihood
of success. Weaker states will require allies, ex.
African states don’t act, Soviets might v. South
Africa.
• The number of nuclear facilities the target possesses.
Iraq and Syria only had single facilities that had not
yet produced weapons. Iran has multiple facilities,
not a single nuclear chokepoint.
• Second…
• The costs can deter a military option. Could the
strike trigger a large scale war or produce other
undesireable outcomes? Iran counter with attack on
the Strait of Hormuz threatened core US politicostrategic interests.
• Normative costs. International norm against use of
force, Article 56 of Protocol I Additional to Geneva
Conventions (1977) specifically prohibits targeting
nuclear plants.
• “As a military matter, the bombing mission would be
straightforward. The Air Force could destroy the target,
no sweat. But bombing a sovereign country with no
warning or announced justification would create severe
blowback.” George Bush memoir re Syrian nuclear
development.
Threat is growing…
• In spite of March 2011 accident at Fukushima nuclear
power plant, there is now what is being called a “nuclear
renaissance”
• Do safeguards keep us safe? Nuclear facilities are dualuse in nature, can serve military and civilian purposes.
Evidence shows that on average, states that receive
foreign assistance in developing peaceful programs are
statistically more likely than states without assistance to
pursue and acquire nuclear weapons.
• Hard to tell intent in developing. Hard to convince
international community and traditional enmities
influential. North Korea. India/Pakistan. Middle Eastern
nations.
Part 3: Chemical & Biological
Weapons
Definition
• CBWs are weapons whose intended means for
causing harm is either the toxicity of chemicals or
the infectivity of disease causing micro-organisms
including viruses, prions, and other such biological
agents that can cause death, temporary
incapacitation or permanent harm to humans and
animals.
• Immediate physical effects, long-term general effects,
potential genocidal implications, and psychological
effects.
• First modern weapon used on April 22 and 23, 1915.
Cylinders of liquefied chlorine gas opened into the
wind at Ypres in WW I.
• Iraqi mustard and nerve gas in Kurdish town
Halabja, March 16-18, 1988.
• Societal constraints on use has led to an accretion of
norms, rules, and procedures in national and
international law constituting a “governance
regime”.
Governance Regime
• 1925 Geneva Protocol- bedrock of regime, parties have
agreed not to use CBW against one another. No First Use
Pledge model.
• 1972 Biological Weapons Convention- ratified by 155 of 171
states, renounces germ weapons in order to exclude
completely the possibility of such weapons being used
against humans. Explicitly outlaws development,
production and stockpiling of biological and toxin
weapons. Lacks ancillary provisions thought necessary to
enforce: means of monitoring, or enforcing compliance.
• 1977 EnMod Treaty- the Convention on the Prohibition of
Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental
Modification Techniques. Less than majority of states
have signed on.
• The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention- prohibits
development, production, and stockpiling toxic weapons.
Has Inspectorate provisions.
• Empowerment of the UN Secretary General to Investigate Use
Allegations 1987
• UNSC Resolution 1540 (2004) –an international response to
impending WMD terrorism, universalize parts of BWC
and CWC to non-state actors.
Biological Weapons
• During the Cold War the US and Soviet Union developed
arsenals. In 1969 President Nixon announced that the US
would unilaterally and unconditionally renounce
biological weapons. He ordered the destruction of the
entire US stockpile and conversation of all facilities to
peaceful purposes.
• BWC goes into force 1975 with 4 nations thought to have
programs (US, Soviets, China, So Africa). By spring
2005, 169 signed but 7 suspected of research program (
China, Egypt, Iran, Israel, No. Korea, Russia, Syria).
• Soviet Union-claimed ended program but Yeltsin
admitted in 1992 had continued substantial levels.
Uncertainty about facilities and stockpiles continue.
• Israel-sophisticated research program and facilities.
• No. Korea- program since 1960s, uncertain status.
• China-large, developed biotechnical infrastructure,
but reject claims.
• Iran-smaller program
• Syria-biotechnical infrastructure capable of
production but not yet known to be weaponized.
• Egypt-small program, officials reject
• Other states potential concern: Sudan, So. Africa,
Taiwan, India, Pakistan.
• Iraq and Libya both had active programs
Bioterrorism
• Difficulty with weaponization and dissemination.
• Anthrax scares but only 2 significant attacks:
Japanese religious sect Aum Shrinrikyo try to
weaponize botulinum toxin but settle with chemical
agent sarin for attackes in Tokyo subway in 1994 and
1995.
• 1984 Dalles, Oregon, religious cult Rajneesh
disseminated salmonella bacterium in 10 restaurants,
infecting 750, but not deaths.
• October 2001, letters sent to members of Congress
and the media containing anthrax. No sophisticated
dispersal mechanism. Killed 5, infected 18 others
• Mass disruption, psychological implications, and
billions in decontamination and prevention
expenses.
Chemical Weapons
• 5 metric tons of the nerve gas sarin carried in bombs
could kill 50% of the people over 4 square
kilometers. By comparison, a Hiroshima size nuclear
bomb of 12 kiloton yield would kill 50% of the
population over 30 square kilometers.
• Only isolated use since WWI, 1996 CWC started
deproliferation, destruction of stockpiles mandated
to be done safely by 2007. 168 countries parties.
• Russia largest stockpile, financial difficulties
destroying. Potential non-secure stockpiles.
• 11 nations have declared: Bosnia & Herzegovina,
China, France, India, Iran, Japan, Russia, So. Korea,
UK, US, Yugoslavia.
• Suspected stockpiles: No. Korea, Israel, Egypt,
Syria. Not signatories.
• Research programs: Sudan, Pakistan, India, So.
Korea.
Relative Dangers?
• “On the basis of the proceeding information, it is
reasonable to conclude that of all the potential
threats, nuclear weapons pose the greatest
risks….These four categories of threat are nuclear
terrorism, new nuclear weapon states and regional
conflict, existing nuclear arsenals, and regime
collapse.” Joseph Cirincione, et al, Deadly Arsenals,
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005.
• “The central point is that the three kinds of weapons
differ in important ways with respect to both productions
and lethality. In general, chemical weapons are the easiest
to make but are unlikely to produce the cataclysmic levels
of destruction that could result from the use of biological
or nuclear weapons. By contrast, nuclear weapons are the
most difficult to produce but also the most destructive
both in lethality and in the speed by which death and
destruction could occur. Biological weapons share the
most frightening aspects of each of the other two:
biological weapons can be made almost as easily as
chemical weapons, yet their destructive potential could
approach that of nuclear weapons.” James J. Wirtz,
Planning the Unthinkable, 2000
Points of Comparison
• Use by nations
• Use by terrorist groups
• Ease of construction v. destructive potential
• Ability to control-unilateral and multilateral
commitment to control
Topic Wordings
• R: Unilateral military force by the United States is
justified to prevent nuclear proliferation. S/O
• R: Proliferation of nuclear weapons is a greater
threat to the United States than proliferation of
biological and chemical weapons. S/O
• R: As a last resort, unilateral military force is
justified to minimize nuclear weapons proliferation.
BB