This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Friday, November 23, 2007 3:17 PM
Sagan - Causes Nuclear 1997 214, "Security Model" : One theory of why states develop nuclear power is that they face security threats that can't be met any other way. 4 quadrants of Nuclear system: low to high capability; low to high nuclear weapons acquisition and maintenance efforts. All countries fall into one of there quadrants. 217, states have responded to threats of other countries. Eg China developed the bomb because US threatened to use the bomb at the end of the Korean War. Neorealist Prolif. Theory: State can balance against Nuclear rival in one of two ways, allying with another nuclear power. Second, developing your own nuclealr powers. Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty: states won't develop Nuclear weapons: states might not develop if they have good reason of believing that their neighbors will not either. 218, other sources of influences of proliferation is also domestic actors that encourage/discourage it. They can by military or politicians which through there control can influence decision making. In the case of India, uncertainty of the upper political eschlons led to being pushed by the bomb lobby to allow nuclear tech. then it turned to use nuclear weapons tech. Hard to argue for cuts in arms, because the argument is that the primary armscountries have a large supply of arms and it is necessary for proliferating countries to have, so as to deter. 221, Possessing Nuclear arms has it's symbolic value. The NPT set up standards that were set up mainly by the larger powers. Diff states respond diff. to NPT. France built up Nuclear weapons as a way to get back to its former greatness. The Ukraine disarmed to dissociate from the Rogue States and benefit from the perks from the larger countries. The NPT standards are still influential. 223, Again how can the US advocate that states not build chemical/bio weapons to deter, when it choose to hold onto nuclear weapons for that very purpose.
Betts - The New Threat of Mass Destruction 1998 What is a real concern these days to the Pentagon is protecting troops abroad from WMD's . But what about Americans, the greatest threat now is Bio weapons, then Nuclear, then Chemical weapons. The fact is now that when once WMD's were the new technology, it is now a tech. of the past. One that now even terrorists can easily gain access to. Real danger is terrorists targeting American cities. The US in accord with the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 got rid of its chemical weapons, it had gotten rid of Bio weap's during the Nixon era. The policy that remains for WMD's is a no first-use policy. But the abitilty to use them in reponse to an attack. 232, Anthrax or other Bio weapons will be the weapon of choice for non-state actors. They are easier to get and far more killing effective than Nuclear and Chem weapons. 234, these days deterence requires that we know who the agressor is and how they are to be deterred. In cases of US involvement in third world issues this deterrence/agressor understanding becomes merky and makes the US more vulnerable. 236, In the case of Ballistic Missile defense. We have no certainty that it will work yet we spend fortunes on it. What we do know is that basic civilian defense through evacuation, vaccination, emergency treatments in the event of an attack have not even been thought of, and tiny amounts of money spent on it. 237, Civil defense meant to minimize damage, but to limit it. The US must not ignore basic steps to protect civilian safety. That will leave people wonderning why didn't the Govt do anything. 241, the US ought to tread carefully especially in the Middle east. The US has tried for so long to play Globocop, and the enemies of the US may challenge the US protected status quo.
Govt 135 Page 1