1. Midterm evaluation of teaching
Get out a piece of paper
Keep it anonymous
What should Prof. Mitchell:
Start doing -- new things that might work
Stop doing -- things that aren’t working
Continue doing -- things that are working

2. 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

3. ONLINE Midterm Review Schedule
TONIGHT (TUESDAY) 9-10pm
Works well for me
Can make this work but non-preferred time
Cannot do this date / time
Review will take place on Canvas

4. ONLINE Midterm Review Schedule
TOMORROW (Wednesday) 5:00-6:00pm
Works well for me
Can make this work but non-preferred time
Cannot do this date / time
Review will take place on Canvas

5. ONLINE Midterm Review Schedule
TOMORROW (Wednesday) 8-9pm
Works well for me
Can make this work but non-preferred time
Cannot do this date / time
Review will take place on Canvas

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. Treaty of Canandaigua, 1794

10. Nuclear Weapons Survey Results

11. States That Had Nuclear Weapons or Programs at One Time but no longer do
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine
South Africa
Iraq
Libya
Argentina
Brazil
South Korea
Taiwan

12. Strategic Nuclear Weapons 1997 2018
United States
7,300
1,350 [4,000 undeployed]
Russia
6,000
1,444 [~4,300 undeployed]
France
482
300
China
410
280
United Kingdom
200
215
Pakistan
15-25?
145
India
60?
135
Israel
100? 80
North Korea 15
Syria / Iran
???
1997: and
2018:

13. https://www. armscontrol

14. 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

15. 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

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

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

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

19. Explaining Cold War Peace
What to
Explain
Possible
Cause #1
Cause #2
Cause #3
Cause #4
Cause #5
Period
State of
World
Nuclear
weapons
Fear of
escalation
Memory of WWII
Postwar status
quo satisfied
Soviet ideology
Pre 1945
War No
Less
Dislike status
quo
Against war
Post 1945
Peace
Yes
More
Like status quo

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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?

23. 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

24. New Treaties Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
First treaty to BAN nuclear weapons
Adopted on 7 July 2017 under UN General Assembly, Signed on 20 September 2017
70 signers (“signatories”) // 23 member states (“parties”)
No states with nuclear weapons voted for its approval and all have renounced it
Interesting case of efforts to establish a strong norm and worry about effectiveness later
New START declaration of February 2018
Aggregate limits:
700 delivery vehicles: ICBMs, SLBMs, and heavy bombers
1,550 nuclear warheads
Verification and Transparency: on-site inspections and exhibitions, data exchanges and notifications, national technical means
No Constraints on Missile Defense and Conventional Strike: ok for testing, development, or deployment of U.S. missile defense programs and long-range conventional strike capabilities

25. Do you think Nuclear Arms Control can work?
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

26. Do you think Nuclear Arms Control can work?
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

27. US Nuclear Weapons

28. US Nuclear Weapons

29. US Nuclear Weapons

30. US Nuclear Weapons

31. US Nuclear Weapons

32. US Nuclear Weapons

33. US Nuclear Weapons

34. US Nuclear Weapons

35. US Nuclear Weapons