IR: The New World of International Relations

1. IR: The New World of International Relations Michael G. Roskin and Nicholas O. Berry Chapter 14 Nuclear Politics: The Bomb Is Here to Stay Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.

2. Nuclear Weapons Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.

3. Nuclear Destruction Hiroshima, 1945 Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.

4. Weapon of War: Early History • Scientists urged FDR to develop atomic bomb during World War II; feared Nazis would get it first • Truman had no problem using bomb on Japan; wanted to avoid bloody invasion of Japanese home islands • After war, Truman wanted to put bomb technology under international control • Soviets refused; would give US permanent lead • With Cold War’s onset and Soviets getting bomb, Truman recognized bomb’s deterrent value and created B-52 strike capability • John Foster Dulles, Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, urged “massive retaliation” as main US deterrent of USSR • Avoided costly, large conventional forces; small US forces in Europe were “trip wire” against Soviet attack Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.

5. Nuclear and Thermonuclear Weapons • Nuclear bombs – those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki – operate by fission, splitting uranium atoms • U-235 refined in minute quantities from ore to a purity of 90% or more: weapons grade uranium • A conventional explosive compresses U-235 core in bomb, setting off chain reaction of neutrons causing detonation • Thermonuclear bombs operate by fusion: a nuclear explosion fuses deuterium (heavy hydrogen atoms) into helium atoms • Thermonuclear explosions are many times more powerful than nuclear ones Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.

6. Alliance Building • Nuclear weapons helped US and USSR build alliances in Cold War • They could provide “extended deterrence,” a nuclear umbrella to protect allies • US alliances included NATO, ANZUS (Australia and New Zealand), and SEATO for Southeast Asia • These alliances provided superpowers access to, and influence over, allies’ foreign policy processes • JFK’s innovation of “flexible response” suggested US might choose when and where to use deterrent; France left NATO as a result to build its own nuclear deterrent Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.

7. International Prestige • Possession of nuclear weapons accords a country prestige internationally --France’s Charles de Gaulle used his force de frappe to restore France’s prestige, lost by rise of America • Other countries will be more cautious and accommodating in response • Having nukes may build political support at home • But, some countries have found obtaining nukes not worth the cost or not needed regionally (South Africa, Brazil) Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.

8. Nuclear Strategies • Second-Strike Capability: When a state can absorb a first strike and retaliate with “unacceptable damage” • First-Strike Capability: When a state thinks it can destroy an enemy’s second-strike capability • Countervalue Attack: Targeting the economy and population of an enemy • Counterforce Attack: Targeting an enemy’s military forces, especially missile sites • Extended Deterrence: A superpower protects allies by treating an attack on them as an attack on itself • Minimum Deterrence: Having even a few nukes for a credible second-strike capability Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.

9. Nuclear Proliferation – Great Powers • Early development of nukes by Britain, France, and China gave prestige and access to nuclear policy decisions by superpowers • France feared US nuclear umbrella might not be applied to France if Soviets attacked in Europe • Mao had conflicts with Khrushchev and Brezhnev, who viewed China’s goals risky, and wanted separate defense against US (and possibly against Soviet Union) • Great powers with nukes have much to lose by threatening their use; leaders tend to be cautious Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.

10. Disarmament Bush and Putin exchange treaty reducing nuclear warheads Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.

11. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty • Superpowers had common interest in preventing proliferation of nukes: maintain their prestige and control of policy • Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and other arms control agreements’ advantages: (1) Decrease threats and increase cooperation (2) Enhance deterrence – neither side has enough for first strike (3) Reduce costs for maintaining expensive armaments (4) Stabilize distribution of power – Superpowers keep their advantage and control (5) May aid in keeping nukes from terrorists, who might more easily get them from weak, or cooperating, states (Pakistan, N. Korea) Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.

12. Nuclear Proliferators – Smaller States • Significant non-signers of NPT: Cuba, South Africa, Israel, India, Pakistan, Brazil, Argentina • India and Pakistan have fought three wars, have major disputed claims over Kashmir; nukes important part of defense strategy • Argentina and Brazil engaged in prestige competition over developing nukes; civilian regimes decided too costly, and unnecessary in Latin American region • South Africa’s nuclear program ended to prevent weapons being turned over to future black government • Israel allegedly has nukes, for defense in midst of hostile Arab region • With break-up of USSR, some nuclear material has reached international market; fear it may fall into hands of terrorists Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.

13. Nuclear Powers Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.

14. Outcome of Nuclear Weapons’ Use • Political functions of nukes would end; deterrence failed • Disarming attacks more likely, to prevent further attacks • Economies would collapse from hitting key targets, such as Persian Gulf oil facilities • War would escalate, with other states drawn in • Nuclear decapitation would knock out countries’ political leadership, hindering settlement of conflicts • Nuclear winter result, a planetary ecological disaster, likely destroying modern civilization • War would be hard to end; could go on for years, decades Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.

15. Nuclear Outcome Hiroshima’s Peace Park diorama of atomic blast effects Copyright @ 2010, 2008, 2005 Pearson Education, Inc.