1. Half of you final exam is an essay (it should take one hour to write)
You may use a 3X5 note card—notes on one side.
"Given what you have learned this semester about why individual countries act the way they do, the challenges countries face in working together on serious problems, and the changing structure of power in the international system, to what extent will international relations in the coming decades be more or less peaceful than what we have seen in the last several decades?"

2. DO WE REALLY NEED TO WORRY ABOUT WMDS?
What is a “weapon of mass destruction”?
Why are they “different”? Is the classification WMD an example of hegemony?
Why do some states get to have them? What are the standards
Some key terms: “Deployed” vs. actual # of warheads, ICBM’s, MIRVs, sub-launched, NPT, ABM, megatons (=1000 tons of TNT), kilotons (one million tons of TNT): *Hiroshima bomb: equiv of 12.5 kilotons of TNT killed approximately a quarter of a million people; *US – USSR 1960s: 77,000 deployed bombs with a maximum load of 25 megatons. The largest bomb ever (Russian) exploded was a little over 50 megatons, resulting in fireball of 6.5 sq miles.
2010: US/RUSSIA agree to warheads & 800 vehicles (bombers + sea/land missiles)
2017: US and Russia are now exploring new types of nuclear weapons and systems upgrades.

3. DO WE REALLY NEED TO WORRY ABOUT WMDS?
Why do states want them? (A summary of Scott Sagan)
The push of history, the ethics of sovereignty, and intl prestige (the norms model): Yeah, morally I’m not supposed to develop WMDS, but the intl system says you have a right to protect your state’s sovereignty, and all of the great powers get to keep their WMDs as the ultimate form of protection; no wonder every society gets excited the first time they demonstrate their nuclear ability.
Recent lessons for despots and domestic stability. North Korea was pushed around like crazy until they developed nuclear weapons; Iraq and Libya didn’t have them and were invaded. It’s hard not to draw the obvious conclusion if you want to exercise tyranny with impunity and not worry about international intervention.
Security dilemmas (offense vs. defensive issues): While I see my WMDs as necessary for protection, you see them as a threat and want your own… And, of course, I’m a lot more aggressive with my conventional weapons knowing that I have WMDs to back me up.
Verification issues: Even if I want to get rid of all of the WMDs, I’m not sure that I’ll ever know if you have truly gotten rid of yours
The tipping point: I’m willing to stand in line (develop but not actually build a bomb), but as soon as many folks start to crowd to the front (build WMDs), I’m jumping in too. While I’d like a world without nukes, I’m most afraid of a world where I don’t have them and all of my neighbors do.

4. Nuclear Warheads (Stockpiled, not deployed; the US and the Russia account for 95 % of the world’s nuclear weapons)

5. Today

6. Looking forward

8. We wouldn’t actually use these weapons would we? A summary of Sagan, et. al.

9. HOW CAN WE LIMIT WMDS?
Macro strategies to limit: Deterrence (we’ll punish you if you develop them),
Reciprocity (we won’t develop them if you don’t and we’ll give you access to markets and other benefits),
Identity (cool states don’t have WMDS)
Tactics used to limit proliferation:
Numerical restrictions (SALT treaties) on the big countries
Categorical restrictions (bans on land mines, cluster bombs, and until recently anti-ballistic missiles)
Development & testing restrictions (anti-test treaties)
Geographic restrictions (Latin America = no nuke zone)
Transfer restrictions (Intl laws stop the sharing of fissile materials and laws prohibiting technology transfer for nukes and missiles)

10. CAN INTL. REGIMES SAVE US FROM WMDS?
How have we historically worked together to protect the world from WMDs? A mixture of treaties and norms [e.g.: Chemical weapons use bans, nuclear deterrence & parity (MAD), and the ABM Treaty (1972)]
How do we stop WMDs now? (1) The Non-proliferation Treaty (1968/1995?2001) & the IAEA to verify compliance, (2) the Missile Technology Control Regime (1995), and the (3) CTBT (1996, 146 states have signed it, but not us), and various bilateral agreements bw the US and Russia to dramatically reduce the arms stocks of the two countries that collectively have made about 90% of all WMDs.
Now that the US has dropped out of the ABM treaty, which stopped anti-ballistic missiles, what are our options for stopping other countries from developing lots and lots of nukes (they’ll need more now for the same level of protection)?

11. EFFORTS AT DISARMAMENT
We wont’ cover this in class, but I wanted you to have a summary.
First things first: What’s the problems with the way intl treaties work? You can back out
The Geneva Protocol of 1925 bans use of chemical weapons
1968/1970: NPT (Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons)
1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty; ‘67 Space, ‘59 Antarctica
1972 ABM/SALT treaties bw US/USSR
Encode MAD assumptions and tries to limit mistakes
ICBM limits (1,500ish ) / SLBM limits (700ish)
1974: SALT—Limits total warheads & number of MIRVs (800ish)
1980s START; Reagan wanted to look into no nuke policy
1987 Missile Technology Control Regime
1993 South Africa gives up nukes, joining Post-Soviet countries
Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993: Stockpiling & production
1995-NPT adopted permanently
1996 CTBT opens for signatures (US hasn’t signed)
The 2002 agreement: 2,200 warhead target & 1600 delivery vehicles apiece for the US/Russia
2010: US/RUSSIA warheads & 800 vehicles (bombers + sea/land missiles)

12. Well, there is perhaps support for using them (a survey experiment)

13. Well, there is perhaps support for using them (a survey experiment)