POLI SCI - Alliances / Nuclear Weapons and Proliferation

• - Observer Mentor Liason Teams - a unit of foreigners placed in a military unit to observe, mentor and liason.
• - useful for comparing how countries are operating
• - NATO in afghanistan - to make sure the forces are working effectively

• - Canada is unrestricted (now) - they can go with the Kandak's (afghan forces) wherever
• - France: requires a phonecall home to Elysée (prez) --> leads to significant delays
• - Germany - restricted, cant move out of RC-North

uneven costs - the price payed in blood uneven (US pays the most, and its allies pay more)

• - says that an attack upon one is an attack upon all
• - BUT each country determines what exactly they will do --> they still have the ability to opt out (the relevant actors are not necessarily in Brussels (NATO headquarters) - depends on who wants to help)

Ultimately there is a variation in risks and costs

• - says what each country can and cannot do (varying levels of discretion)
• - both formal and informal

• limits:
• - what commanders can do on the ground (do they need to phone home?)
• - areas of operation (cant leave specific places)
• - who a contingent can work with
• - whether or not they can go out at night
• - if they can perform offensive operations or not

--> REDUCES FLEXIBILITY

• - the capability of the mother country
• - how one interprets caveats

Interactions: collective goods? prisoners dilemma happens a lot, but the stakes are usually uneven - why are some countries more involved than others

Interests: public opinion - if there is low public support for a war/conflict then there is more likely to be tighter restrictions. More dangerous places also usually have tight restrictions

• Institutions: who makes decisions about rules governing deployment
• - if there are multiple actors, more likely to be compromise (caveats).
• - Less enthusiastic actors --> more caveats
• - Contingent gov'ts (many ppl) - more likely to have restrictions (except Danes and Canadians)
• - if single actor (prez, single party parlaiment), depends more on their personality - change is more likely

- work with old partners : Canada - UK, Dutch, US; Danes - UK, Italy doesnt do anything?

- creative force allocation (put the germans where they can help, not fire)

- use special operations units (not restricted)

- scenario scheming?

- rely on less caveated contingents

• WWII/Conventional Bombing
• - create more massive bombs and technology increases
• - this escalates over time: knock out enemy force / morale --> wipe out civilians in mass numbers to make it more painful to fight
• No. This is the same with Atomic weapons, now weapons are just bigger and more efficient --> end the war quicker by inflicting extreme pain on an opponent

- in the event of war, immediately launch a massive atomic attack

The Soviet Union had the conventional military advantage in Western Europe (many more troops) so the west develops nuclear bombs to balance

The problem is that nuclear bombs have enormous first strike advantage

• - size of weapons (bigger --> hydrogen fusion)
• - number of weapons
• - delivery system to drop bombs (all a leader has to do is push a button that is brought to him)

mutually assured destruction

- HUGE - can destroy a whole country in minutes

- 1st strike advantage doesnt apply any more

• Methods
• - redundence: the more you build, the more weapons will survive. But the more enemies you have, the more ppl will want to take you out --> just keep producing
• - missiles with rapid launch - fire back and forth at eachother (?)
• - Nuclear Submarines: - survive the first attack and then wipe out an opponent

But ultimately both sides would be wiped out

• - Mutual Deterrence: may keep peace (dont start war because both sides will lose)
• - dont need to win to destroy (its insane to even think of starting war) (?)
• - goals shift from winning war to avoiding war

• - there may be a "winnable" nuclear war if you're looking at degrees of destruction - the less destroyed is the winner
• - but that is fucking sick and perverted, (mad) - accidents may happen where you destroy the whole world. Even having weapons risks too much
• - problems of control
• - need for cooperation

• - not really --> deterrence might not work
• - stability-instability paradox?? - we wont use nukes but are stable underneath?

- you can limit conventional war, but you cant really limit nuclear wars - cant say that it wont escalate beyond cities (cant make credible threats as to bombing cities)

- if you attack our ally, we will attack you. but are you really willing to sacrifice your cities for your allies cities?

but this leaves something to chance - if you attack our ally, things will go wrong for you

- defense may now be even moe dangerious

Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (1972) - makes each side more vulnerable (get rid of missiles)

Strategic Defense Initiative (1980's) - US trying to develop a way to shoot missiles out of the sky - but this made the USSR more suspicious if the technology ever worked --> earth is more dangerous

• -limits nuclear weapons to the 5 current nuclear states - USA, USSR, UK, China, France
• - those that do have are committed to disarmament
• - right to civilian nuclear power (energy) - but enriched uranium can also be used for nuclear weapons

• pro's
• - force leaders to behave responsibly (if you use, you will be destroyed)

• cons
• - more sources of error
• - rougue general - control of nukes could fall into the wrong hands
• - not all countries are cooperative
• - nations may be aggressive, irrational ... Iran?
• - could get into the hands of terrorists

• - strike first? - but that could backfire
• - offer guarantees and moniter

• - because nuclear technology is spreading
• - the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty allows the enrichment of Uranium and separation of plutonium
• - uranium enrichment facilities could be underground (Israel sent an air strike on nuclear power plants in 1981, but no luck)

imposing economic sanctions through the UN security council

this only increases the costs of going nuclear, does not reduce the ability of the government to get them, as seen by India and Pakistan in the 1980's and 90's

when the US and other global actors satisfy concerns that drove a state to want nukes in the first place

• - protect against an external security threat
• - satisfy interests of domestic actors
• - acquire status symbol

• Iran
• - protection (sits in unstable region - aggressive Iraq)
• - stand up to US demands for regime change in Iran

only guarantees a very precarious peace - there is nothing to make sure that states keep their promises to disarm ex: Japan

• - they would expose themselves and their allies to severe retaliation
• - Iran might also support terrorist groups in Europe or the US

because Iran has a security issue as well

2003: Lybian president gave up the pursuit of nuclear weapons in exchange for and end to economic sanctions and positive economic incentives

Therefore, US should offer security measures to Iran sooner rather than later

US didnt keep their promise to North Korea (construction of light-water reactors and normalizing relations) if they dismantle their reactors

SO, they have to keep their promises and maintain credible threats that it will impose sanctions or even limited force agains Iran if it violates commitments