IP NOTES 12/5

#25 Nuclear (II)

I The Nuclear-Political Question
why get nukes?
1)answer threat
2)prestige
3)internal bureaucratic push

why do less states have nukes than are capable?
-nuclear umbrella
-American or Soviet alliance allowed states to forgo nukes while still getting all the benefits
-if NATO or warsaw pact broke down, theory goes that nukes would proliferate a whole bunch
-'pariah states'
-states in a massively hostile environment, they need nukes to protect themselves
-NPT (1970)
-non nuclear states
-forgo nukes
-get civilian nuke reactors
-nuclear states
-have nukes
-provide civil nuclear capabilities
-move towards complete disarmament
-IAEA also created
-can only inspect declared sites
-if violations discovered, can only report said violations to UNSC
-the idea behind this was that civil and military nuclear capabilities are unrelated, but its really NOT TRUE
-civilian and military capabilities are intertwined
-idea to fix this problem
-inspect ALL SITES
-NO enrichment or reprocessing
-however, guaranteed access to nuke fuel

aaaaaaand now for our actual topic


II Nuclear One-Worldism
General Argument
Nukes render nation-states obsolete
-nukes do for continent-sized areas what gunpowder did for state-sized areas
this was pretty much based on the assumption that nukes would continue to be used
during 1945-55, when memory of nukes was still real fresh...
America proposes the BARUCH PLAN
-all nuclear activities of all states would be placed into the hands of an international authority
-separates nuclear capabilities from government
Varieties
IMPERIAL ONE-WORLDISM
-J. Burnham was the main proponent of this
-well, the US has a nuclear monopoly
-we should forcibly establish a world government
-destroy the USSR if necessary
-this assumes that nukes would exist, and be used
-Burnham went on to be the editor of the NATIONAL REVIEW, hugely conservative publication
MAXIMAL WORLD FEDERALISM
-extensively debated, much more liberal than ^^
-R. Hutchins headed them up
-1948- came up with a draft of a world constitutionn
-the idea is that we'll just give the world what the US has
-community building would go hand in hand with state building
-establish a state, and unity would form
TRAGIC ONE-WORLDISM
-H. Morgenthau- the leading American realist
-the nation-state is militarily obsolete
-without community, there can be no state
-this is a problem, so world government CANNOT be created
-this is the tragic impasse
-advocated a holding action until the community was ready and willing to create a state
MINIMAL WORLD-STATEISM
-advocated a world police state
-the police state gets a monopoly of violence
-ALL it can do is enforce peace
-can do NOTHING ELSE
-even if the states agree to this, how do you keep the police state from becoming despotic
NONE of these systems really work all that well
III War Strategism
General Argument
nuclear weapons provide NO CHANGE in int'l politics
it's just a bunch of bigger guns
their image of state-system is that of a game, but a complicated one
like chess, extremely difficult, very complex, but ABLE TO BE WON
their idea is that of a LIMITED nuclear war
-you use nukes, but you don't destroy everything and anything
-you use them to FIGHT WAR
War Fighting & NUTS
NUTS- Nuclear utilization and targeting strategies
counterforce is the idea here, relative gains
even if we lose all but 20 people in the US, if the russians only have 19 then we win
Strategic Defense
in 1970, US and Russia BOTH decide not to test any anti-ballistic missiles
now, US withdrew from the ban

IV Deterrence Statism (DS)
General Argument
B. Brodie- main proponent
realists now really adopt this
idea is that there's been this huge revolution triggered by nuclear weapons
-they say that nukes have already triggered the revolution
-because of MAD, there is an EASY STALEMATE
-war is suicidal
-states dont want to die, therefore there will be no nuclear war
MAD & its requirements
secure second strike capability extremely necessary
CHRIS IS A DOUCHE-EATER

Automatic DS
all you need is a small amount of nukes, the massive amount of nukes created is ridiculous
arms control is also unnecessary, because deterrence is so robust that it can handle it
proliferation of nuclear weapons is actually BENEFICIAL, because then deterrence will spread to those states as well
-nukes produce PEACE
V Institutional DS
General Argument
'the arms control position'
arms control is not automatic and has prerequisites
you need some sort of learning process
-the actors are stupid, they need to learn
regimes are then established for establishing this understanding
nukes that fragment in the air and rain down as multiple nukes are... dangerous?
frozen anarchy
Internal and External AC

VI Modified NOW & Republicanism
General Argument
now what you ACTUALLY want to build is a sort of egg-carton
protect the vulnerabilities of the state, while keeping them separate
Nuclear Despotism
despotism = hierarchy
has a utopian assumption about the intelligence and self-preservation of states
Kalashnikov Revolution
AK47s and IEDs own the fuck out of nukes
-when you actually attempt to subdue a populace, you incur unacceptable losses
-essentially, you're left with two options- leave them alone or obliterate them entirely
Leaking Leviathans and MANGOs!!!!!!
leakage is to non-state actors
MNGOs- malevolent NGOs
as the # of nuke states increases, the possibility of leakage to a non-state actor goes way way up
-this ELIMINATES deterrence
-fuuuuuuuccckkkkkss the shit up
-