Outline for today Midterm Review Review nuclear weapons survey (extra credit) Facts about nuclear weapons Effects of nuclear weapons Explaining the Cold War Peace A nuclear taboo? Nuclear vs. chemical / biological weapons International cooperation and nuclear weapons

Midterm Review GREEN BOOKS NO DEVICES, BOOKS, TALKING, PHONES, EARBUDS IF 2 or more greenbooks, insert one inside the other! NO CHEATING END ON TIME

Realism Institutionalism Feminist Theory Focus – what is being explained? Conflict Cooperation Gender/racial conflicts rather than interstate conflict Actors – who are considered the main actors to watch? States are primary and act as unitary rational actors Multiple actors (states, MNCs, NGOs); not always unitary or rational Gender, racial identity matters as much as national identity Goals – what are the goals of the main actors? Survival, security, and hence, power Econ & social goals as well as security Individual security and well-being (but state provides only for some) Means – what means do actors use to achieve their goals? Military force is usable, effective, and fungible Asymmetry in interdependence; issue-specific power Gender/racial identities in service of state; marginalized power in cooperation (vs. force) Organizing Principles – how is the international system organized? Anarchy and self-help Anarchy mitigated by norms, rules, & institutions Patriarchy, gendered and racial hierarchical structures Dynamics – what does the process of international relations look like? Acquisition and balancing of power Alternation of cooperation & conflict Reconstruction & maintenance of gendered and racial hierarchies

Some “facts”: what are they examples of? WW1 was preceded by a rise in German power Soviet Union and US were allies in WW2 but alliance dissolved as soon as war ended Since 1945, no war among European Union members but war in Yugoslavia and former Soviet Union States with greater gender equality go to war less often US invaded Afghanistan without UN authorization UN sanctions against Iraq hurt poor, women, children 9/11 attacks were committed by non-state actors

Some “facts”: what are they examples of? 8,000 men slaughtered in Srebenica while women and children taken to safety in UN buses Increases in number of Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons between 1997 and 2015 Decreases in number of US and Russian nuclear weapons between 1997 and 2015 No treaty explicitly outlaws most forms of sexual violence against women Treaty banning landmines signed because of NGO activism AND it has reduced use of landmines in war

Nuclear Weapons Survey Results

Three “legs of the triad” Bombers – slow and visible but recallable ICBMs – fast and visible but not recallable SLBMs – video of launch – fast and not visible and not recallable

http://www.armscontrol.org/files/images/Warheads_Graphic_C.png

I>clicker survey Since 1960, Number of US and Russian (Soviet) nuclear weapons has Increased a lot Increased somewhat Stayed the same Decreased somewhat Decreased a lot

Effects of nuclear weapons Decreased likelihood of total war Increased devastation should war occur Increased likelihood of regional wars

Pre-Nuclear World Go to War Avoid War // || Non-nuclear (by defn) Status quo // \\ Win Lose More Power Dead Soldiers Power and Soldiers at Same Level as Before

Nuclear World Go to War Avoid War // \\ || // \\ || Non-nuclear (by defn) Nuclear Status quo // \\ // \\ Win Lose More Power Dead Soldiers Dead Soldiers & Civilians Complete Destruction Power and Soldiers at Same Level as Before

Explaining Cold War Peace What we want to explain Possible explanation #1 explanation #2 #3 #4 #5 Period State of World Nuclear weapons Fear of escalation Memory of WWII Postwar status quo contentment Soviet ideology Pre 1945 War No Less Dislike status Against war Post Peace Yes More Like status quo

I>clicker survey Nuclear weapons not used because Not in our interests: too costly in terms of blowing up oilfields Didn’t have capacity: lacked nuclear weapons that could do the job Rules of international law: treaty outlawed it Norms and identity: not what Americans do

A nuclear taboo? Logic of consequences: decisions as cost-benefit calculation from available means Logic of appropriateness: decisions as "what is right in current situation, given social identity state desires" Tannenwald: Bush 1: nuclear weapon use not considered because not “right” thing for Americans to do There WERE previous nuclear threats

Nuclear vs. chemical and biological weapons How do they differ? Ease of acquisition: availability of components and know-how, known likelihood of success Ease of use Magnitude and type of impacts Why do we consider some worse than others?

International cooperation and nuclear weapons Arms races as a Prisoners Dilemma – think about incentives Treaties / International Institutions / Regimes Do you think they would work? According to realism, nuclear weaponry is a “hard case” for international cooperation

Do you think Nuclear Arms Control can work? I-clicker questions The US and Soviets/Russians have signed: 0 treaties to reduce nuclear weapons 2 treaties to reduce nuclear weapons 4 treaties to reduce nuclear weapons 7 treaties to reduce nuclear weapons

Do you think Nuclear Arms Control can work? I-clicker questions The US and Soviets/Russians have signed: 0 treaties to reduce nuclear weapons 2 treaties to reduce nuclear weapons 4 treaties to reduce nuclear weapons 7 treaties to reduce nuclear weapons If they signed treaties, did they abide by them? Yes No

http://www.armscontrol.org/files/images/US_Stockpile_A.png

http://www.armscontrol.org/files/images/US_Stockpile_A.png

http://www.armscontrol.org/files/images/US_Stockpile_A.png

http://www.armscontrol.org/files/images/US_Stockpile_A.png

http://www.armscontrol.org/files/images/US_Stockpile_A.png

http://www.armscontrol.org/files/images/US_Stockpile_A.png

Strategic Nuclear Weapons: 1997 vs. 2015 Country 1997 Strategic 2015 Strategic [undeployed] United States 7,300 1,597[2,800] Russia 6,000 1,582 [~3,000] France 482 ~300 China 410 ~260 United Kingdom 200 ~225 Israel 100+? 80 India 60+? 90-110 Pakistan 15-25? 100-120 North Korea 6-8 Syria ??? Iran 1997: http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukestab.html and 2015: http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

Tactical Nuclear Weapons: 1997 vs. 2015 Country 1997 2015 United States 4,700-11,700 ~500 Russia 6,000-13,000 ~2,000 China 120 States That Had Nuclear Weapons or Programs at One Time: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine South Africa Iraq Libya Argentina Brazil South Korea Taiwan 1997: http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/nukestab.html and 2015: http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat