INRL Week 10 - Graham Finlay & Tobias Theiler PDF

Preview

Summary

Graham Finlay & Tobias Theiler...

Description

UCD Day Seventy-One - 12/4/18 - Foundations of Pol. Theory and Int. Relations - Week 10.2 - Tobias Returns

- WMDS!! now with improved drama - “Virtues” of nuclear weapons - they can stabilise a situation and deter aggression (Europe during Cold -

-

-

-

-

World, India and Pakistan?) Perhaps prevented wars that may have otherwise occurred? Fact of nuclear escalation makes even conventional war less likely. Cheap protection for weaker states - resources normally used on military buildup can then be diverted to civilian needs Awful consequences of their use makes their use less likely. Despite increase in number of countries that have nuclear weapons they have never been used - and arguably chances of their use are decreasing Drawbacks - nuclear war is hard to limit, if it breaks out it could destroy the earth. Nuclear war would make the military/civilian distinction meaningless Danger of accidental or unplanned usage - technological failure, mad leader, theft by terrorist groups. huge power gap between nuclear and non-nuclear states Mutually Assured Description - “deterrence through punishment” and “security through vulnerability” main aim of retaining second-strike capability, make clear that it would be used, ensure that opponent knows this - putting missiles in caves or on trains. But otherwise no effort made to prepare defence against nuclear attacks - protect the weapons but not the civilians. Seems counterintuitive, but if the doctrine functions neither side attacks because to do so would be suicide (presuming both sides act rationally). However if Side A looks like it is preparing for an incoming attack, Side B may become suspicious that Side A is planning to attack first. Only way then to show that there is no intention of attacking is to not make preparations for defence against retaliatory attack. Advantages of MAD: makes nuclear war less likely; limits buildup since both sides can destroy each other with relatively few weapons. Problems: leaves you dependent on rationality and survival instinct of the other side. Provides no security against accidental use of nuclear weapons. However at the point when the system fails, the attacked side requires absolute rationality - i.e., no point in attacking since deterrence has already failed. Madman theory - idea that retaliation would occur even if deterrence has already failed. Nuclear Utilisation Theory - “Deterrence through damage denial” aim: destroy enemy weapons before they explode on one’s territory through first strike nuclear weapons and space-based missile defence. Advantages: less dependent on rationality of your opponent; provides some protection against accidental or terrorist launch of nuclear weapons. More moral system if it works, as it frees the state from commitment to the killing of millions, and from the irrational commitment to retaliating even after being attacked Problems: anti-missile defence never completely reliable - and unless it is 100% reliable, it is just an incentive to build up the arsenal. If 1 missile can get through then just fire 100. If it is totally reliable however it makes nuclear weapons pointless. Makes the other side feel more vulnerable and thus fuels nuclear proliferation - erecting defences suggests plan to attack. Also very expensive. States worried more about nuclear blackmail rather than nuclear attack - when one side is willing to attack and the other is not....