Reading_Guide_Answers[1].docx

Week 1. Goodby on the origins of the bomb. Goodby?s article has two parts - he tells the story of the bomb, especially from the viewpoint of US-Britain cooperation and competition, then he talks about the precedents that Truman said. You can approach the first in the way I suggested concerning stories - who the characters were, their motives, what they did. Know purposes and goals and outcomes. The second part of his article is nicely laid out in that he has headings, so I?d know generally what each heading means. Be able to explain the heading in a sentence. Characters: Roosevelt Churchill Truman Roosevelt and Churchill were close and wanted to create a US British monopoly of the atomic bomb and saw it was the best way to preserve world peace Truman came into the picture after Roosevelt died in April of 1945; Motives: Churchill and Roosevelt?s motives were to be the only super powers in the world with the power and ability to create a atom bomb; the Combined Development Trust of 1944 would have given the two countries to long-term rights to uranium ore; What they did: Under Truman?s administration the first atomic bomb was used on Hiroshima Japan Aug 6; the second used against Nagasaki on Aug 9 Truman authorized a nuclear production base that lead to a flood of nuclear weapons in administrations to follow Headings: First Rules of Behavior: Churchill came up with ?the Quebec Agreement? which would become the first major political document to shape this nuclear era. He outlined rules in which Britain and the US would follow: Tube alloys shall be created as soon as possible; the US will have the nuclear plants and facilities because it would be unnecessary to spread war resources across the Atlantic; this ?agency? will never be used against each other; or against third parties without mutual consent; will not speak of said project to third parties without mutual consent; since all the brunt is being put on the US postwar advantages of commercial or industrial use will be decided by the US Pres. Who will tell the British PM and the PM will agree; open communication between the two powers and new information or ideas will be told to both sides ?Tube Alloys?=code word for atom bomb Postwar control over Atomic Energy There was fear of a nuclear arms race by a V Bush and James Conant; the believed there needed to be some sort of international committee acting under the assertion of nations with the authority to inspect arms sites; a Physicist N. Bohr tried to warn Churchill but he put it off?still believed in a US UK monopoly; Churchill and Roosevelt wrote a letter soon before R died it stated: the bomb should be kept secret even after it?s use in Japan (if it needs to come to that) and that Neil Bohr needs to be looked into and to make sure he doesn?t leak information to Soviets; The Fallacy of Unilateral Advantage Both Churchill and Roosevelt were opposed to giving scientific information out about the atom bomb and felt international control of atomic energy was unnecessary; one of their main reasons was the uneasy temper and ulterior motives of Stalin and the Soviet Union; they started to believe later that the number of states possessing atomic energy and weapons should be held to a minimum but overestimated the difficulties in acquiring nuclear weapons; they did know that there needed to be something to prevent the spread of them Truman?s defense doctrine: Once Truman took office the US-British relationship stopped; after the soviets tested their first nuclear weapon in August 1949 a soviet expert came up with the defense doctrine of containment; Precedents for the future: Truman came up with a set of precedent?s that held up in following administrations (rhetoric changed from president to president) they were: Civilian control of atomic energy Nonuse of nuclear weapons: American public would have understood if he used nuclear weapons during WWII but he did not; he understood special rules must govern nukes Presidential control of Nukes: Weapons of deterrence, not weapons of choice in war: main task was to deter the SU from any assault on American interest by promising quick and certain retaliation Rejection of preventive war: preemption?an attack to blunt a nuclear attack under way or about to begin was more favored Alternatives to nuclear weapons Preventing the spread of nukes: International control over atomic energy: appointed people to create group to bring atomic energy under international control; from then on presidents tried to control nukes through international agreements The dynamic of new technology: Truman authorized the building of the ?super? hydrogen or fusion or thermonuclear bomb; HYDROGEN BOMBS MORE POWERFUL THAN ATOM BOMBS (Atom bombs were less than 20 kilotons Hydro bombs were 20 megatons) Expanding the production base: of enriched uranium and plutonium and so create means to build very large numbers of nukes; reasons were the SU was advancing in nuke numbers quickly; Week 1. MAUD Report Who wrote the Maud Report, and roughly what did they recommend? MAUD Committee on the USE of Uranium for a bomb Britain; they recommended the building of facilities and the bomb and that it should be considered a high priority to get the bomb made as quick as possible. They feel the beginning stages should be development work in Britain and the US however when they reach later stages and need a plant for experimenting with the actual atomic materials it should be moved to the US. What aspects of the way it was written up made it so influential? It is broken up into categories explaining their findings, the materials used in the bomb, how they need to be fused together to form the bomb, the effects of the bomb and the cost which lead to the conclusion that it should be made. It argues that a nuclear bomb is possible, but does it follow from that that one should be constructed? Yes, MAUD argues that it should be constructed but that they have reach a plateau and need more time/money to go on To what extent does the report give positive reasons for going ahead, or, alternatively, to what extent does it simply assume that if a more destructive weapon is possible to build, we should build it? They say that if there is a lag in their experiments/planning of building such a bomb and facilities it will ?retard by an equivalent amount the date by which the weapon could come into effect?; they feel it is practical and would lead to a decisive result in war; also that work with America should be extended in the region of experimental work Week 1. Schelling on nuclear non-use Just how long have the weapons not been used? 60 years Was this expected? Why did it happen, according to Schelling? Not exactly, it happened due to the ?taboo? that Secretary of State Dulles perceive to have attached itself to these weapons; Schelling says they are perceived as unique, and emphasizes perceived ? why does he emphasize the word? We have been brought up to think, since the first nuclear weapon, that no matter the size these weapons have much greater destruction and importance than ?conventional weapons? The purpose of the article is to understand why in order to preserve it, right? Also what kinds of policies or activities may threaten it, how the inhibition may be broken or dissolved and what institutional arrangements may support or weaken it; also to help extend this ?preservation? to other countries that might not have nukes yet; Which is more correct ? that the US was pushing the tradition and other countries were urging a readiness to use the weapons, or the opposite? Under President Eisenhower and Secretary Dulles they were more on the side of urging a readiness to use the weapons. They stated ?in the event of hostilities, the US will consider nuclear weapons to bas as available for use of other munitions? Why is the answer to this question the one you might expect, given power politics? During Eisenhower?s era and the theory of power politics, you (a state or country) need to be appear on top and in power, you need to intimidate your opposition and let them know who?s boss Where did Eisenhower stand on the idea that the weapons were perceived as unique? He felt that a nuclear weapon should be used the same way you would use a bullet or anything else; he believed they should become more conventional and they weren?t in fact, that unique Who was John Foster Dulles? Eisenhower?s Secretary of State Given Schelling?s stories about considering the use of the weapons in Korea or against a Chinese invasion of the offshore islands of Quemoy in Matsu, does Schelling see this tradition as an inevitable development or a lucky chance development? Lucky chance?Eisenhower and Dulles were both willing to use nukes but because of certain events. Such as the successful landing at Inchon and the fact that the Chinese did not offer the opportunity for the US to use nukes Where did Kennedy and Johnson stand on the uniqueness question, compared to Eisenhower? Kennedy was the complete opposite in fact he had a campaign with McNamara to reduce reliance on nuke defense in Europe by building expensive conventional forces in NATO; they were against the use of nukes from the start; they explained there was no such thing as a nuclear weapon Suppose nuclear weapons could be constructed that were no more devastating than large conventional weapons. Would governments still feel there was a taboo against using them, given Schelling?s arguments? Yes because they are simply different and generically different; both arguments he produces come to the same conclusion that once nuclear weapons were introduced into war there couldn?t and probably wouldn?t be contained, confined, or limited Suppose one found a peaceful use of a nuclear explosion ? like blasting a new riverbed or a new harbor. Would the taboo hold then, according to Schelling? Explain his analogy that using one would be like an alcoholic taking ?one little drink.? once nuclear weapons were introduced into war there couldn?t and probably wouldn?t be contained, confined, or limited Does Schelling see the Soviet Union as operating under a similar taboo? Yes, he says that the Soviets denied the possibility of a non-nuclear war in Europe however they spent a lot of money on developing non-nuclear capabilities (aircrafts capable of delivering conventional bombs) What would have happened, according to Schelling, if Saddam had attacked the US forces in the 1991 war with chemical weapons? The issue of appropriate response would have posed the nuke questions, he feels if the president had said they needed to escalate from conventional weapons nukes would have been top on the list; it would have ended 45 yrs of non nuke use, What does he see the motive of Iran in having a bomb? Of terrorists in having a bomb? Iran-to be used for influence to keep the US, Russia or China from intervening and for them to be hesitant towards military action; to be the ones to deter and not be the deterred Terrorists-influence as well; it will give them something of the status of a nation; threatening to use it against military targets and keeping it intact if said threat is successful may appeal to them more than using it in a destructive act? Explain why he is in favor of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. It has the potential to enhance the nearly universal revulsion against nukes; he says that it is a symbolic effect that nearly 200 nations have ratified it and it should add enormously to the convention that nuclear weapons are not to be used and that any nations that do use nukes will be judged the violated of the legacy of Hiroshima What is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty? Nominally only about testing Week 2. Hilsman on the Cuban Missile Crisis Hilsman is telling a story, so know the triggering situation, characters, motives, major events as indicated by his headings, and the outcome. Characters: Soviet Premier Khrushchev President Kennedy Motives: Khrushchev wanted to throw off the US; he know the US had found out they didn?t have a missile gap but they did have an over abundant supply of IRBMS and ICBM?s so he would deploy them to Cuba and this would keep the US from launching another Bay of Pigs Kennedy didn?t want to see this go to nuclear war; he wanted to talk things out with Khrushchev Triggering situation: Soviet Premier Khrushchev?s discovery that the US knew that it had more intercontinental missiles than the Soviet Union had. Major Events indicated by headings: Missile gap in reverse: US was under assumption that Soviets were far ahead of them when in actuality it was the other way around The Soviet Plan: two phases?1. Cuban ringed with defenses 2. Missiles would be deployed on vessels to Cuba The Resolution: Kennedy?s advisor came up with a step-by-step policy which would allow the Soviets to think through the consequences and avoid any ?spasm reactions?; came up with 4 solutions: Soviets would withdraw missiles from Cuba UN inspectors would be allowed to supervise and verify removal SU would promise not to reintroduce missiles to Cuba-ever The US would publicly pledge not to invade Cuba The Cable from Khrushchev: At first it seemed they were willing to negotiation and accept Kennedy?s solutions but then later that day they switched positions in a public broadcast in Moscow asking for a trade of missiles in Cuba for US missiles in Turkey; a U2 was also shot down and pilot killed which worried the US that the Kremlin was taking over (hardliners) The Strange Love incident: It turns out it was a mistake a U2 was flying over Soviet air space the pilot picked the wrong star on his return from the North Pole and flown over Soviet territory; The ?Trollope ploy?: from a movie where girl interprets a squeez of her hand as a proposal for marriage; two cables had come through on separate days and Kennedy decided to only reply back to one; it work and Moscow released a public statement later that day saying it would be dismantling arms in Cuba; the US responded with a public statement as well and the crisis was over Outcome: The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved when Khrushchev and Kennedy came to an agreement. Khrushchev withdrew his nuclear missiles from Cuba in exchange for Kennedy?s promise to dismantle missiles near the Soviet border and to not invade Cuba. Week 2 - Goodby on Eisenhower Like his first article he has a short note at the start outlining his major ideas. This is very valuable to a reader, so pay attention to it. You don?t have to worry about specific ideas that I didn?t mention in class but do consider what he sees as the major issues. What does he say was Eisenhower?s choice? His choice was deterrence with the use of nuclear weapons This is a lot more detailed than his earlier chapter, probably because he was personally in on it. I?d follow this idea: if a concept appears in a heading, like ?containment? or ?triad? or ?extended deterrence? it?s probably important. He?s very good at establishing a subject and sticking to it, then moving to the next. In the study of folk ballads it?s called leaping and lingering. Week 2 - Burr on the Horror Strategy. I reviewed this article in class, and you can use the lecture slides as a guide to it. It?s very detailed so the important thing is the basic concepts and the basic story. Week 3 ? Partial Test-ban Treaty Who signed it and roughly, when? US, Britain, N. Ireland, USSR Signed in July entered into force Oct 1963 Just what does the treaty ban? Why? bans all testing of explosions of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, outer space and under water To put an end to the contamination of man?s environment by radioactive substances To slow the arms race and to stop excessive release of nuke fallout Does the treaty ban explosions for peaceful purposes, like making a harbor or a pass through mountains? If debris is outside the territorial limits of the State under whose jurisdiction or control" the explosions were conducted Kennedy: Such explosions are prohibited by the Treaty because of the difficulty of differentiating between weapon test explosions and peaceful explosions without additional controls." Why didn?t they ban all tests? It didn?t ban underground testing if fallout debris stays in the country doing the testing Suppose a country is caught testing in the atmosphere, against the agreement ? what are the consequences? the treaty outlines no consequences Is it legal to test just below the surface of the earth, where radioactive debris escapes into the atmosphere (see Article I). Only if the debris stays within territorial boundaries Does each side get to make inspections within the other?s territory, or must it stay outside with its monitoring devices? Must stay outside with its monitoring devices You can skip the details of the negotiation and the proposals for possible inspection provisions. (Some of this info was from the lectures.) This isn?t from either the text or the lectures, but you can think about it? The treaty is open for the signature of all states. Have all countries signed this treaty? No Why not let non-states sign it as well ? for example some groups that are accused of being terrorist and wanting nuclear weapons could sign it to show their intentions. Why do you think it is restricted to states? Because they do not want to get terrorists groups intention to gain nuclear weapons or recognize them as a ?state/nation? Week 3 - Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Summary A very natural question for this would be to compare this treaty with the last one. Why do they call it comprehensive? The Partial Nuke test ban treaty deals with atmospheric, under water and outer space test bans whereas this treaty hopes to ban all nuclear weapons explosions, testing and it has an ultimate goal of eliminating nukes and having a general and complete disarmament Is there verification? Roughly who has signed it - same as the last one? Yes there is, article IV establishes a verification regime consisting of IMS, IDC, consultation and clarification, on-site inspections and confidence-building measures Roughly 127 states sponsored the final draft which was adopted 2 years later on September 1996 however it will not be in effect until all 44 countries with nuclear power and weapons sign the treaty Here?s an interesting small but telling question: If a state plans to conduct a chemical explosion of over 300 tonnes (Metric tons) what does it have to do and why? It must voluntarily notify the technical secretariat of any single chemical explosion; stations of IMS must be calibrated and also to ensure the State testing said explosion is just testing a non-radioactive material This summary seems to say that you can?t withdraw, but you can - just with six months notice. Week 3. New START Treaty We reviewed the basics of this in class. As with any treaty, you don?t have to know the content of each article by number, but you should know generally what the treaty calls for, and its current status. If ratified, the treaty will limit the number of deployed strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550, which is down nearly two-thirds from the original START treaty, as well as 30% lower than the deployed strategic warhead limit of the 2002 Moscow Treaty. It will also limit the number of deployed and non-deployed inter-continental ballistic missile (ICBM) launchers, submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) launchers, and heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 800. Also, it will limit the number of deployed ICBMs, deployed SLBMs, and deployed heavy bombers equipped for nuclear armaments to 700.[3]Week 3 - Verification and START As mentioned in class, this is a complex article. The highlights section at the beginning is very useful. You don?t need to know many details, but those in Figure 1, discussing the kinds of verification systems are good. Have all treaties had verification systems? Is it more important to verify a treaty now than it was during the Cold War, or less important? Why? Why do they say that a good verification system can save you money on weapons? decrease cost of weapons (e.g., economic cost, nuclear fallout) decrease probability of a war, e.g., by decreasing tension, increasing trust ; promoting crisis stability decrease the severity of a war if one happens Who was pushing for more verification over the years, the US or the Soviet Union? The US You can skip the START: Born of the Cold War section, and start up again reading New Challenges. Week 4 - New York Times editorial on the New START Like a good editorial or op-ed, this speaks for itself. It says what it wants to have happen, then systematically gives the reasons. Points He says failure to ratify will undermine Washington?s credibility as it presses other wannabes such a Iran and N Korea to drop their nuke ambitions The new treaty calls for both sides to reduce deployed warheads from 2200 to 1500 and ensure inspections are going as planned and exchanges of informational re as well; There are some republicans against it and critics claim it will limit America?s efforts to build missile defense. Another claim is that Obama Admin isn?t doing enough to ?modernize? nukes it retains; which editorial writer claims is untrue because Obama has pledge $80 bill over next 10 yrs to sustain and modernize nuke complex Resolution given by Lugar: future agree-upon limitations on missiles must go through senate approval; and the US is committed to providing money needed to maintain labs/nuke arsenal; Failure to ratify would be costly for US credibility and security; the US would have less info about Russia?s nuke plans because START I is still expired; no further reduction for future in 20000 nuke weapons still in countries? arsenals Week 4 ? Obama?s Nuclear Posture Review This document (or the part you read, pp. 5-31) would be a source for only the most general questions. It?s an overview, but as a political document it tries to please as many people as possible. You would have to read it closely and know the context to understand whether it?s really in favor of more missile defense or less. You would have to compare it, for example, with Bush?s Nuclear Posture Review of 2002. It has a few specifics, like the rejection of the idea that the US should never initiate the use of nuclear weapons. (Who does it say might get attacked by US nuclear weapons, even if they didn?t use them against the US?). But even that gets covered over in the section?s summary points. So read it over for its very general ideas and we?ll talk about it in the second part of the class. Week 4 The ABM Treaty We?ll talk about some of this on Tuesday in class, but what does ABM stand for? Anti-Ballistic Missile Did the treaty make it illegal to deploy anti-aircraft missiles to defend against Russian bombers? yes What does a typical ABM system look like ? how does it function? It is a system used to counter strategic ballistic missiles or their elements in flight trajectory What, in general, does the treaty ban? Development, testing or deployment of ABM launchers capable of launching more than one interceptor missile at a time or modify existing launchers to give them this capability; and systems for rapid reload of launchers are similarly bared interceptor missiles with more than one independently guided warhead Does it permit any systems on land, in space, in trucks, on the ocean? No it does not What ABM deployments does the treaty permit? One ABM system on the nations capital; no more than 100 abm launchers and no more than 100 abm interceptor missiles at launch sites; radars w/in no more than 6 abm radar complexes One ABM system near an ICBM launcher; Why do you think they have to be 1000 miles apart? They must be that far apart so they can not provide a nationwide ABM defense or become the basis for developing one?each country thus leaves unchallenged the penetration capability of the others retaliatory missile forces Prevent creation of an effective regional defense zone or the beginnings of a nationwide system Why do you think the treaty bans ABM?s that have multiple warheads or can be reloaded? It?d be difficult for the abm system to defend itself How does a country leave the ABM Treaty? Give notice of its decision to the other party 6 months prior to withdrawal; they shall include a statement of extraordinary events that the notifying party regards as having jeopardized its supreme interests What is the system of verification that the other side is keeping the treaty? Each party will use national technical means of verification at its disposal in a manner consistent with generally recognized principles of international law; each party cannot use deliberate concealment measures What is the Standing Consultative Commission? A commission to promote the treaty?s objectives and implementation It conducted the first review of the treaty (part of the treaty calls for review of it 5 years after its entry into force) It considers questions concerning compliance with the obligations assumed and related situations which may be considered ambiguous; considers possibly changes in strategic situation Which countries signed the treaty? Nixon and Brezhnev How come there?s an ABM system in Alaska, if ABM systems were banned by the treaty? Because GW Bush withdrew from the treaty saying that the US needed to be prepared for an attack against terrorist