Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
60 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
Major Power Dust-Ups
|
-Most recent declared war: ww2
-Most recent war: korea -Most recent armed clash: -Most recent militarized conflict: cold war |
|
Reasons for Major Power Peace
|
-Communications
-Interdependence -Democracy -International Norms. -Nukes! -US hegemony. |
|
Why is democracy good for peace?
|
-Popular sovereignty
-“Veto points”Externalization of domestic norms of conflict resolution -Democracies like each other. |
|
US Hegemony
|
-Can’t challenge US
-No war without US permission -Interest in averting disruptive events |
|
Economic Interdependence
|
-“Siamese twin” effect.
-Contagion effect (diffusion of culture). -Trade improves well-being. |
|
Do International Norms Matter?
|
-Safety valve
-“Lines on the pavement” -Forum for peaceful resolution. -Means for mobilizing support against norm violators. |
|
Leading Power Peace Explanations
|
-Realist Explanations: US hegemony; nukes
-Liberal Explanations: democracy; globalization; Ios. |
|
Which came first, Peace or GlobalizationWho’s Right?
|
-Globalization breeds peace (Jervis): among developed
-Peace breeds globalization (Wolf): only after hegemonic power gets system over hump. -Globalization breeds WAR (Huntington): among developing countries. |
|
The Clash of Civilizations
Why the “Clash”? |
-Greater interdependence means greater interaction between members of incompatible “civilizations”.
-Globalization causes state weakness. |
|
US and other major powers
|
-China: interdependence and nukes and Ios?
-Russia: nukes and US hegemony -Japan: democracy and interdependence and IOs -EU: ditto -India: democracy, interdependence, and nukes. |
|
What undermines them?
|
-US hegemony: US hegemony
-International organizations: loss of US hegemony -Globalization: loss of US hegemony -Democracy: breakdown of globalization -Nuclear deterrence: NOTHING |
|
The Past so far…
|
Globalization (Industrial Revolution) Economic Crises (Gold and fading Brit hegemony) Hegemonic Transition WWI Deglobalization Realist Incentives The WW2 Hegemonic Transition Complete Globalization Economic Crises Hegemonic Transition ????
|
|
Differences between 1914 and 2014
|
-Nukes
-US still very powerful -International Organization |
|
The Possible Futures
|
-Best plausible scenario: status quo! Or no hegemonic transition. Or liberal peace breaking out all over the planet.
-Worst plausible scenario: breakdown of globalization, followed by bad stuff. -Indicators: got nukes? |
|
Nukes, Bugs, and Gas
|
-Nuclear: nuclear fission and fusion.
-Biological: free range organic. -Chemical: handcrafted artisanal. |
|
Legal Status
|
Bio: BWC
Chem: CWC Nuke: Legal |
|
Why no ban on Nuclear Weapons?
|
Two reasons: very useful weapons for deterrence. Neither chemical nor biological weapons can approach this combination of lethality and reliability.
|
|
Why are nukes legal?
|
Effective
Exclusive club Two reasons: Actual usefulness as a deterrent Tech threshold is high, meaning the number of users is small. |
|
Future Nuclear Battlefields
|
Pakistan and INdia
|
|
Was the Cold War unique?
|
-Very distant adversaries
-Early warning -No common border -Big nuclear arsenals -No ABM defenses |
|
What undermines them?
|
-US hegemony: US hegemony
-International organizations: loss of US hegemony -Globalization: loss of US hegemony -Democracy: breakdown of globalization -Nuclear deterrence: NOTHING |
|
The Past so far…
|
Globalization (Industrial Revolution) Economic Crises (Gold and fading Brit hegemony) Hegemonic Transition WWI Deglobalization Realist Incentives The WW2 Hegemonic Transition Complete Globalization Economic Crises Hegemonic Transition ????
|
|
Differences between 1914 and 2014
|
-Nukes
-US still very powerful -International Organization |
|
The Possible Futures
|
-Best plausible scenario: status quo! Or no hegemonic transition. Or liberal peace breaking out all over the planet.
-Worst plausible scenario: breakdown of globalization, followed by bad stuff. -Indicators: got nukes? |
|
Nukes, Bugs, and Gas
|
-Nuclear: nuclear fission and fusion.
-Biological: free range organic. -Chemical: handcrafted artisanal. |
|
Legal Status
|
Bio: BWC
Chem: CWC Nuke: Legal |
|
Why no ban on Nuclear Weapons?
|
Two reasons: very useful weapons for deterrence. Neither chemical nor biological weapons can approach this combination of lethality and reliability.
|
|
Why are nukes legal?
|
Effective
Exclusive club Two reasons: Actual usefulness as a deterrent Tech threshold is high, meaning the number of users is small. |
|
Future Nuclear Battlefields
|
Pakistan and INdia
|
|
What undermines them?
|
-US hegemony: US hegemony
-International organizations: loss of US hegemony -Globalization: loss of US hegemony -Democracy: breakdown of globalization -Nuclear deterrence: NOTHING |
|
Was the Cold War unique?
|
-Very distant adversaries
-Early warning -No common border -Big nuclear arsenals -No ABM defenses |
|
The Past so far…
|
Globalization (Industrial Revolution) Economic Crises (Gold and fading Brit hegemony) Hegemonic Transition WWI Deglobalization Realist Incentives The WW2 Hegemonic Transition Complete Globalization Economic Crises Hegemonic Transition ????
|
|
Differences between 1914 and 2014
|
-Nukes
-US still very powerful -International Organization |
|
What undermines them?
|
-US hegemony: US hegemony
-International organizations: loss of US hegemony -Globalization: loss of US hegemony -Democracy: breakdown of globalization -Nuclear deterrence: NOTHING |
|
The Possible Futures
|
-Best plausible scenario: status quo! Or no hegemonic transition. Or liberal peace breaking out all over the planet.
-Worst plausible scenario: breakdown of globalization, followed by bad stuff. -Indicators: got nukes? |
|
The Past so far…
|
Globalization (Industrial Revolution) Economic Crises (Gold and fading Brit hegemony) Hegemonic Transition WWI Deglobalization Realist Incentives The WW2 Hegemonic Transition Complete Globalization Economic Crises Hegemonic Transition ????
|
|
Nukes, Bugs, and Gas
|
-Nuclear: nuclear fission and fusion.
-Biological: free range organic. -Chemical: handcrafted artisanal. |
|
Differences between 1914 and 2014
|
-Nukes
-US still very powerful -International Organization |
|
Legal Status
|
Bio: BWC
Chem: CWC Nuke: Legal |
|
The Possible Futures
|
-Best plausible scenario: status quo! Or no hegemonic transition. Or liberal peace breaking out all over the planet.
-Worst plausible scenario: breakdown of globalization, followed by bad stuff. -Indicators: got nukes? |
|
Nukes, Bugs, and Gas
|
-Nuclear: nuclear fission and fusion.
-Biological: free range organic. -Chemical: handcrafted artisanal. |
|
Why no ban on Nuclear Weapons?
|
Two reasons: very useful weapons for deterrence. Neither chemical nor biological weapons can approach this combination of lethality and reliability.
|
|
Legal Status
|
Bio: BWC
Chem: CWC Nuke: Legal |
|
Why are nukes legal?
|
Effective
Exclusive club Two reasons: Actual usefulness as a deterrent Tech threshold is high, meaning the number of users is small. |
|
Future Nuclear Battlefields
|
Pakistan and INdia
|
|
Why no ban on Nuclear Weapons?
|
Two reasons: very useful weapons for deterrence. Neither chemical nor biological weapons can approach this combination of lethality and reliability.
|
|
Was the Cold War unique?
|
-Very distant adversaries
-Early warning -No common border -Big nuclear arsenals -No ABM defenses |
|
Why are nukes legal?
|
Effective
Exclusive club Two reasons: Actual usefulness as a deterrent Tech threshold is high, meaning the number of users is small. |
|
Future Nuclear Battlefields
|
Pakistan and INdia
|
|
Was the Cold War unique?
|
-Very distant adversaries
-Early warning -No common border -Big nuclear arsenals -No ABM defenses |
|
and the race is on!
|
UK—deterrence and PRESTIGE
France—deterrence and PRESTIGE China—US, USSR and PRESTIGE |
|
The Non-Proliferation Treaty, 1970
|
-The “Grand Bargain”
-Nuclear weapons states (the Big Five) pledge not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-weapons states, work in good faith to eliminate own nuclear arsenals, and share nuclear energy technology. -Non-weapons states pledge not to acquire nuclear weapons in return for peaceful nuclear assistance. -Not a nuclear weapons ban. |
|
Prerequisites for a Nuke
|
Know-how
Fissile material |
|
Next Best Thing: Test Bans
1963, ptbt, 1966 |
-1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty: no nuclear explosions in the atmosphere, underwater.
-PTBT Objective: mainly health and safety issues. -1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty: no nuclear explosions, “peaceful” or otherwise, period. |
|
Next Best Thing: Test Bans
2/3 of un, ctbt, US |
-2/3 of UN General Assembly votes in favor; US signs but does not ratify (submitted for ratification 1999,rejected by US Senate).
-CTBT Objective: undermines confidence in new arsenal; makes development of new weapons chancy. -US Objections: desire to develop new weapons; stockpile maintenance. |
|
Who are the next proliferators:
|
India: fear of China; Pakistan; prestige. “Atoms for peace”.
Israel: fear of Arab states. France. Pakistan: fear of India, China. South Africa: Israel. North Korea. USSR. Bargaining chip |
|
Reasons States Acquire Nuclear Weapons
|
-Prestige
-Deterrence against conventional or nuclear threat -Everyone else has them. -Not offensive intent. |
|
Why do states help states get nukes?
|
-Alliance commitments
-Common enemy -Pooling of resources -Profit motive |
|
Keeping Nuke-Free
|
-Cost
-Nuclear allies -Reputation -Absence of security threat |
|
World without nukes???
|
-Lots of more nuke states
-No more anarchy (increase in IO power). -Nuclear war. |