5 Written questions
5 Matching questions
- What are the problems that pessimism has traditionally suffered from?
- Rather than the superpowers, current and former, informing nuclear emerging powers, how, according to Karl, can the emerging nuclear powers inform the superpowers?
- What two paths did the US take regarding its weapons policy in the aftermath of WWII?
- How does the US-Japan Alliance take part in the Japan-China security dilemma?
- What does Realism get right about the post 9/11 world?
- a Ambiguity in nuclear doctrines increases deterrence, because by not highlighting deficiencies, countries avoid the security dilemma. Otherwise they would make their weaknesses obvious, invest in balancing them, and hence give incentives to the opponent to do the same.
The countries also have more reaction choices in case of war, because they are not bound to a certain strategy, which they proclaimed beforehand.
Non-integration of conventional military forces is important because otherwise they might be target of attack. Nuclear weapons which aren't assembled yet are harder to target and are less prone to fall into the opponents hands.
- b i. Total disarmament of military nuclear programs and internationalization of civilian nuclear programs. Furthermore, the international authority to handle—with force if necessary—the nuclear matters would have absolute authority, and no state would be able to veto its decisions on compliance.
b. Mass Retaliation
i. Although not stated in the chapter, as it does not apply to arms control, this was the path of deterrence threatening aggressors with a completely devastating first strike.
- c Deductive logic: History is used for illustration rather than theory building.
Ethnocentric bias: 3rd World country leaders are seen as less responsible and more prone to use nuclear weapons.
- d By basing themselves in Japan, and defending Japan from potential enemies, the Americans take away any justification for a re-armament of Japan. This prevents a security dilemma between Japan and China from spiralling out of control. However, by asking for a more active Japanese role in the Alliance, the Americans may actually cause instability.
- e Realism was able to explain correctly the situation of the post-9/11 world. Indeed, according to realists the military response of the U.S. to terrorist attacks is understandable. "When a state grows vastly more powerful than any opponent, realists expect that it will eventually use that power to expand its sphere of domination, whether for security, wealth, or other motives."
5 Multiple choice questions
- Originally, the Chinese were worried that a collapse of the US-Japan Alliance would bring a re-armed and possibly aggressive Japan into the world. When the alliance recovered, Chinese analysts were relieved. Soon they were worried that the Americans were encouraging the Japanese to develop new military capabilities and technologies. The Chinese either see the alliance as a bottle cap—keeping Japan down—or an eggshell—protecting Japan while it rearms.
- -- Taiwan has not been permitted to participate
-- Beijing has insisted that internal Chinese affairs not be on the agenda, effectively blocking ARF discussion of cross-strait tensions despite their obvious broad regional implications.
- --a) It distorts the cultural diversity of Asia.
b) It denies the appeal of universal values in the region.
c) It blurs the line between socialism and Confucianism in Chinese values, and ignores the strong resistance across East Asia to China's civilizational arguments.
- a. For verifying and assuring compliance with safeguards agreements states have made by signing the NPT treaty. In other words, they make sure that nuclear energy is not diverted from peaceful, civilian programs to nuclear weapons programs.
b. In particular, it has been tasked with monitoring the nuclear programs of Iraq and N. Korea.
c. It also serves as a resource to developing countries for assistance with peaceful nuclear applications, and, since 1986, for training in the safe operation of nuclear reactors.
- a. More states than ever are interested in nuclear weapons;
b. The US and Russia have abandoned strategic nuclear arms control and have begun to dismantle their arms control accomplishments.
5 True/False questions
What were ways in which the new arms control would assess success? → a. By deterring and responding to treaty withdrawal by states in violation of the NPT's obligations;
b. By seeking to achieve universal adherence to the IAEA Model Additional Protocol, giving international inspectors the authority they need to detect undeclared nuclear activity and making protocol part of the safeguard standard;
c. By attempting to ensure compliance with the non-proliferation obligations that form the core of the NPT
d. By seeking to foster recognition of the need for all states to live up to the strictest standards of safety and security in their peaceful nuclear activities;
e. By continued support of NNWS with their civilian nuclear applications.
How did the financial crisis of the late 90's become a security concern? → a. The Security Council, of which there are five permanent members (the US, France, the UK, China, and Russia—the five acknowledged nuclear states) and 10 other members elected biannually to the council, has the authority to deploy troops drawn from UN member countries;
b. It can mandate cease-fires during conflict;
c. It can impose economic penalties on countries for violating their UN or other international security obligations;
d. It can dispatch or impose military operations, economic sanctions, arms inspections, human rights and election monitors, etc.
How is a security regime different from a conflict formation? → Disarmament contains merely the reduction of armaments.
Arms control is a broader concept. It first priority is to increase security. This can at times be counterintuitive, because in certain circumstances it might actually lead to an increase in armament to improve security. It also addresses number, character, development and use of armaments.
To what—or to whom—can the demise of the old arms control paradigm be attributed to? → a. To Bush and his administration. In their assessment of arms control, they found it to be utterly ineffective, unverifiable, and at times detrimental to US security, and counterproductive in its traditional form for various reasons. They were also obsolete, not addressing the new threats faced by the international community.
b. After this assessment they began a spree of rejections, such as the rejection of the BWC and reneging on the ABMT with Russia, and the abandonment of the CTBT, which the US had initially created and promoted itself.
i. The rejection of the CTBT was rejected on account of the low verifiability of the treaty regarding low test yields, and the changing security needs and international dynamic in the post Cold War world.
ii. The BWC was rejected because due to the Bush administration's belief in its utter ineffective, particularly regarding verifiability: it would be able to verify BW production in large, developed nations like the US, but not verify undeveloped nations and criminal organizations that did not have hi-tech, modern facilities. Thus, it would have penalized industrial states while ignoring the small operations conducted by terrorists.
iii. The ABMT was rejected along similar lines as the CTBT—that the international scene had changed and required ABMT's for security, rather than the absence of them for security. (See page 55 for explicit reasons) Bush's decision was somewhat reluctantly confirmed by Putin, who stated in so many words that the acquisition of an ABM was not the start of another arms race and another Cold War.
How was the India-US nuclear collaboration seen as a threat to the new arms control? How has it been ameliorated? → - Reduce likelihood of war
- Reduce political and economic costs
- Minimize scope of war