Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

FS 6411 Seminar Waltz--pg 17--only vital interests? What if someone doesn't?

Levels of rationality--Waltz believes in total transparency--not the world we live in Statement: nuclear weapons reduce the instance of war; Gavin--balance of resolve--matters because the strategic level equation involving nuclear weapons; US did crazy things during Cold War to demonstrate our resolve that we would not have done without nuclear weapons (danger of extended deterrence) Sagan--militaries favor offensive strategies; civilian leaders are critical element to avoid nuclear use--argument for civilian control; military organizations follow a consistent logic and culture; Counter: military members in US are far more casualty sensitive than government officials today; becoming more politics sensitive; Key distinction--Sagan says military is reluctant to go to war BUT if they do, they want it decisive and total and preferably preemptive; Narang--local control is asking for trouble; Pakistan example--strict control; Why States Want the Bomb-1. Security model 2. Domestic politics model 3. identity model Gavin (pg 18) - estimates did not turn out in horrible future; should change your view of future Argument against: but past does not prologue to the future; very difficult to use past indicators; butm if there is some small risk, we should sign on to the conservative case Iran-Posture (Narang): Why are we opposed? Fanatacism/irrationality (Congress rationale) Preventative action/war (Israel) Preemptive war (other countries) Chain reaction - Middle East arms race Emboldening effect (stability/instability) Bandwagoning to Iran ** Restricts US freedom of action

Sagan--there will be tensions in nonproliferation policy...and tools... Nuclear Zero Initiative (eg) Do our policies add up logically? NPT, PSI, sanctions, **security guarantees-extended deterrence... Defensive denial, Preventive war Extended deterrence doesn't line up with NPT Preventive war: