Political Science 1020E Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Fissile Material, Kenneth Waltz, Nuclear Warfare
26 Jun 2018
School
Department
Course
Professor
Tutorial 9 – Questions
Reading: Kenneth Waltz, “Why Iran Should Get the Bomb: Nuclear
Balancing Would Mean Stability.” Foreign Affairs vol. 91, no. 4
(July/August 2012), 2-5
1. Why, according to Kenneth Waltz, will economic sanctions not work
against Iran, and perhaps even make things worse?
Take north Korea, which succeeded in building its weapons despite countless
rounds of sanctions and UN Security council resolutions
If Iran determines that its security depends on possessing nuclear weapons,
sanctions are unlikely to change its mind
Adding more sanctions now could make Iran feel even more vulnerable, and give
them more reason to seek protection through nuclear weapons
2. What does Waltz refer to as a “breakout capacity”? Could this be a
stable middle ground or resting place? Why or why not?
A breakout capacity if Iran stops short of testing a nuclear weapon but has the
capacity to build and test a nuclear weapon quickly
Might satisfy domestic political needs of Iran’s rulers by assuring they can enjoy
all the benefits of having a bond (greater security) without the downsides
(international isolation and condemnation)
US and EU allies are concerned with weaponization, so they might accept a
scenario in which Iran stops short of a nuclear weapon
Israel, has made in clear that it views a significant Iranian enrichment capacity
alone as an unacceptable threat – and therefore would likely continue to continue
efforts to subvert Iran’s nuclear program through sabotage and assassination –
which could lead Iran to conclude that a breakout capability is an insufficient
deterrent.
3. Waltz writes: “Yet so far, every time another country has managed to
shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always
changed tack and decided to live with it.” Is this likely to happen again?
Is there any reason to believe that Iran would be an exception to the
general rule?
By reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce
more regional and international stability, not less
Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly has fueled instability in the Middle East. It is
their nuclear arsenal, not Iran’s desire for one, that has contributed most to the
current crisis – power begs to be balanced
Israel wants to remain the sole nuclear power in the region and it is willing to use
force to secure that status – nuclear crisis will end only when a balance of
military power is restored
Politics 1020E, 2017-2018, Term 2, Page 1 of 2
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
Kenneth waltz, why iran should get the bomb: nuclear. Take north korea, which succeeded in building its weapons despite countless rounds of sanctions and un security council resolutions. If iran determines that its security depends on possessing nuclear weapons, sanctions are unlikely to change its mind. Adding more sanctions now could make iran feel even more vulnerable, and give them more reason to seek protection through nuclear weapons. A breakout capacity if iran stops short of testing a nuclear weapon but has the capacity to build and test a nuclear weapon quickly. Might satisfy domestic political needs of iran"s rulers by assuring they can enjoy all the benefits of having a bond (greater security) without the downsides (international isolation and condemnation) Us and eu allies are concerned with weaponization, so they might accept a. 3. scenario in which iran stops short of a nuclear weapon.
