Class Notes (836,163)
Canada (509,672)
POLSCI 2I03 (101)
Andrew Lui (26)
Lecture 7

Lecture 7.docx

3 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
Andrew Lui

Midterm: do the readings and study from the lectures. 2 parts: no essay questions. Part A: trivia questions (fill in the blanks, names, dates). Part B: long answer: definitions, concepts, theories, explanations. Part A: worth 1 mark each. Part B: worth 10 marks each. 10 questions Part A, 4 question Part B. how much to include: no material from the lecture on Wednesday before the Midterm. Assignment: will be given on Wednesday. Conventional weapons and course of diplomacy: Traditional security studies The mere existence of nuclear weapons does not necessitate an automatic political response. MAD: the way in which it was connected to theory, and where it came from. It came largely from the realist but particularly from neo-realism. The notion that states are rational actors, as well as notion of power as a material concept. Waltz said that the most stable international system is one where two superpowers are balancing one another. Why are nuclear weapons still important today? With nuclear weapons still in existence today do they pose a threat? Since the Cold War we no longer view the Soviet Union as the same enemy, and a threat to international security. Nor do we view the Soviet war heads as a potential threat to North America. During the cold war where the nuclear weapons were, and what side they belonged to. After the cold war this notion of knowing where the nuclear weapon is becomes less concrete. After the cold war, countries started getting nuclear weapons: India, Pakistan, Israel (has it but does not openly talks about it, particular security strategy). What about North Korea and Iran- both have nuclear ambitions and active nuclear programs. What threat do the nuclear weapons pose and to whom? How so? How do we adopt a guiding security strategy to meet those threats? South Asia: when India and Pakistan got nuclear weapons, it got public reaction, scholarly attention, and international attention. Waltz‟s optimism on nukes (Box 23.1): point 3- Waltz is basically saying that the gradual spread of nuclearized states is a good thing so India and Pakistan good thing according to Waltz because it will make that region and the international community as a whole more stable. It will make the cost of war unacceptably high. Point 4- emphasize that states are perfectly rational actors, and the guys who have their finger on the trigger, have perfect control over their states. Thinking about India and Pakistan, Iran and North Korea, do we agree or disagree with Waltz. Point 5- this is Waltz‟s thesis; a strong view within much of the US foreign policy establishment. If certain states require a response like North Korea or Iran (if you disagree with Waltz‟s thesis) how do you response to it. Scott‟s Sagan pessimism (Box 23.2): states are perhaps not as rational, not as cohesive as Waltz makes them out to be. Think about the nature of nuclear weapons there is no re-do, once it is done it‟s done. Point 2- what we know if we look within the „black box‟. Because Waltz is being a realist, he doesn‟t care about domestic power, as he says that they are reductionist power. Sagan is saying that that „black boxing‟ is not useful and responsible, we do have to look at regime types and domestic politics. Example: Pakistan, the civilian leadership does not control the nuclear weapon despite who is the President; the military has quiet harsh control over that program and its use. Nuclear deterrence rests on the supposed logic of MAD (it is state A has second strike capability, such that if they were attacked it would have enough nuclear weapons even in the event of suffering from the strike to retaliate). India and Pakistan have problems with MAD: they don‟t have enough bombs, India being a relatively large country despite the destructiveness of nuclear weapon you will not destroy India. Can you deliver the nuclear weapon accurately? India has a slight upper hand in terms of the delivery system; they sent rockets to space so the rockets are more advanced. Patrick Morgan: not a security expert, but expert of deterrence. Secre
More Less

Related notes for POLSCI 2I03

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.