Class Notes (839,194)
Canada (511,223)
POLB80H3 (152)
Lecture 8

POLB80 Lecture 8.docx

3 Pages

Political Science
Course Code
Sheldon Ungar

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full 3 pages of the document.
th POLB80 Lecture 8: October 30 2012  What’s going on the world? China and Japan are in a dispute over a tiny island. Why? It’s about the natural resources. This tiny island has oil and will increase their relative strength.  History: There’s a historical legacy of conflict between Japan China. China is still is not gotten over the Japanese invasion of WWII. We have arguments of national identity or pride on both sides.  We can also talk about in terms of domestic politics. The economy is not very great. This conflict is potentially used being used in China with the problems in economic problems they are having. This is a classic realist problem.  It’s not just wars that are different today. The whole idea of IR is changing. What are the security threats?  Nuclear Proliferation: We’re going to stay in the realm of national security.  The trouble with Proliferation:  More will be better for peace and stability because there’s a balance of power- everyone will be equal. This will lead to peace and stability.  MAD on a global scale. The destructiveness is so great; no one would go to war. No one really wins if everyone has nuclear weapons in war.  Nuke: Fusion, fission, and neutron – All this is all about atomic energy. We’re using radioactive material to create the explosion force.  Nuke: Theatre, Strategic  Chemical weapons are not just gases. Nothing comes close to strategic nukes which can kill a whole city. A large threat is a dirty bomb. This is used to spread radioactive material. You don’t see an explosion, a suite case of nuclear weapons.  More will be worse for peace and stability: BOP not really achieved. If we all lose the nukes, the world will be a stable place to live in. Is this really true if we have a huge proliferation in the world. We cannot see or protect states that make nuclear weapons. Is BOP (everyone equally having nuclear weapons) really peace? This can cause an edge of war and less cooperation. This is side of the debate that all of the major states side on. But why?  Why do big powers side with no nuclear weapons: Secure arsenals: So we don’t have accidents, Partial Proliferation: Is the BOP achieved? There would be arms race, accidents, and proliferation to non-state actors. The biggest worry is the actors that don’t have a location cannot be readily deterred. More is worst because we cannot insure that state and non-state actors would use them, deterrence doesn’t hold.  Status quo: Actors are the only one who should have nukes. The ones that are making nukes are looking for status quo.  There is a fundamental fairness question. Argument: there’s a taboo against these but is there a taboo? We have this notion that great powers have prestige. Prestige works only if there’s a taboo against using them. Norms are
More Less
Unlock Document

Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

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.