1 / 9

Nuclear Bargaining

Nuclear Bargaining. PLSC 379R Lecture 3. Shall We Play a Game?. Some News. Putin said about US development of a national missile defense that “U.S. Policies Are Undermining Global Stability”

samira
Download Presentation

Nuclear Bargaining

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Nuclear Bargaining PLSC 379R Lecture 3

  2. Shall We Play a Game?

  3. Some News • Putin said about US development of a national missile defense that “U.S. Policies Are Undermining Global Stability” • Mr. Putin joked that he worried the United States was “hiding extra warheads under the pillow” despite its treaties with Moscow to reduce strategic nuclear stockpiles. *What does that sound like? • He expressed alarm that an effective antimissile shield over the United States would upset a system of mutual fear that kept the nuclear peace throughout the cold war. “That means the balance will be upset, completely upset,” he said. • Iran • North Korea

  4. Do Nukes Change Everything • Should we study nuclear bargaining separately from conventional bargaining? • Nukes can do more damage than conventional weapons • Firebombing of Japan • Are nukes morally objectionable? • So are other types of weapons (napalm, flame throwers, etc.) • Military victory not necessary to destroy a population • Conventional aerial bombing • Total destruction of society (a far more “effective” punishment strategy) • No real defense

  5. Mutual Assured Destruction • If one side launches a nuclear attack, the other side will retaliate • Both sides will be destroyed • No possible gain that outweighs the cost (total destruction) (issue importance not enough to outweigh e(costs) and p(win) • Nuclear confrontations won with threats alone. Actual use = loss for all. So credibility of threats is important! • Commitment • The commitment problem is perhaps at its thorniest with nuclear weapons • Threats need to be that one will respond, not that one might respond …right?

  6. Managing Risk • Remember the balance between commitment and risk? • Total commitment may result in a “Dr. Strangelove” catastrophe • Lack of commitment may also be catastrophic • Making “will” threat may result in having to carry it out or having the threat discredited • Rocking the boat / Brinkmanship

  7. First Strike • Countervalue vs. counterforce strikes • Counterforce threaten target’s second strike ability • Countervalue holds target’s population hostage • First-strike advantage • So if there is an advantage to striking first, and you think an opponent might strike in the future … uh oh! • Second strike capability • Inadvertent nuclear war • National missile defense

  8. Nukes and Conflicts • Among the great powers • Stakes may be very high (more credibility) • Prevents small conflicts from escalating • May make low levels of conflict more likely to escalate into limited fighting • Between great power and minor power • No effect • Why?

  9. Proliferation and Stability • Nukes promote peace • Nukes make war more likely • Nukes are irrelevant

More Related