05 Issues of IR

Issues of International Relations¶

History of nuclear weapons¶

Nuclear weapons are more of a political weapons, rather than an actual military weapon; cuz it’s more about signaling/deterrence than actually using it

Nuclear weapons were only used once - when the victim did not have any nuclear weapons to deter them; ie, US on Japan; no MAD (mutually assured deterrence)

But the fact that it hasn’t been used so far doesn’t mean that it cannot happen now

Western world was caught off guard when India started nuclear testing (according to the media, at least)

Indian strategists were actually glad that Pakistan also got nuclear weapons, because Pakistan now became secure; an insecure Pakistan would try to attack India in other ways; now it’s just about deterrence, rather than fighting

This could be possible for Iran too, cuz it’s been cornered by everyone; but if it becomes nuclear, then it will become secure and may reduce terrorism

Terrorism is the weapon of the weak ; the strong do not do that

all this is like gun laws for civilians

Present¶

All countries are allowed to have civilian nuclear programs for power generation; but the countries must sign treaties to allow inspection to ensure that nothing is get diverted into the weapon development

Iran is producing nuclear weapons to protect itself from Israel. Should we be worried? Yes, because (the below reason)

Arguably, we should monitor which countries newly avail nuclear weapons, because we do not know how they would use them

It is better if nuclear weapons are under a civilian government, rather than the military

The permanent 5 of UN were somehow okay with India and Pakistan going nuclear, but then they are not okay with other countries cuz it changes the power balance

Treaties¶

Disarmament¶

Japan has been educating countries to denuclearisation

Non-Proliferation Treaty¶

Stopped horizontal proliferation (no of countries)

India criticized the treaty saying that the treaty did nothing about vertical proliferation (no of weapons, trials); India said that then they should ban testing

IDK Treaties¶

i don’t agree with this, but this theory says that

even the defensive missile weapons systems should be controlled so that the countries that have nuclear weapons do not feel insecure

Elements of Stable Nuclear Deterrence¶

According to Scott Sagan

1. disallow pre-emptive war when one side has a temporary advantage
2. eg: 2^nd Gulf War
3. develop survivable second-strike forces
4. to deter the enemy if they nullify the first attack
5. avoid accidental nuclear war
6. keep weapons away from terrorists

Determinants of going nuclear¶

1. to improve national security
2. to improve prestige, national identity
3. to improve political image
4. Western world wants to affect the common people of countries, so that the people riot against the country
5. But if the country makes nuclear weapons, then it appeases the people
6. economic costs

More vs None¶

what is better? more or no nuclear weapons?

For More¶

helps small countries feel secure which will stop them from doing other nonsense

Nuclear Doctrines/Postures¶

1. every country wants a minimum deterrence
2. second strike/survivable weapons capability
3. No First Use eg: India and China
4. assured and massive retaliation eg: Cold war
5. Nuclear strategy prefers counterforce
6. Counterforce - attack military threats like missile launch points
7. Countervalue - attack commercial places like malls, tourist destinations, wonders of the world
8. Asymmetric escalation not responding proportional
9. Launch on Warning (LoW) keep missiles and nuclear weapons separately to give the enemy some time to reconsider their current decision
10. Nuclear strategies
11. Nuclear ambiguity/opacity eg: Israel
12. latent nuclear capacity eg: North Korea
13. Extended nuclear deterrence/ nuclear umbrella eg: US for the countries dependent on it

Recent Developments¶

Countries are still keeping on increasing their nuclear weapons

we are further away from nuclear-free than ever

China¶

has been accelerating its nuclear capability

hypersonic missiles can evade the radars of the enemy

Nuclear posture

1. defensive
2. clearly no use on nuclear-less countries

India¶

india has always been no first use

despite this being a great policy for a safer world, India has recently become more ambiguous about this, saying that they might consider using it for certain circumstances to signal others not to mess with them

Terrorism¶

United Nations has never been able to come up with a working definition. The definition changes with context.

Terrorist¶

The govt tends to label anybody against the state as a terrorist. Kinda messed up and unfair defintion, but yeah what to do.

KLF¶

Khalistan Liberation Front

Pakistan funded the movement

Kurdistan Worker’ Party¶

Kurds have wanted their own state for a long time

• Why was this a threat?
• cuz other groups will also start asking for their states

But the UN did not interfere, cuz they cannot interfere in the internal affairs of a country

IRA¶

Irish Republican Army

Northern Ireland wanted to separate

ETA¶

Spain - Catalonya

Basque separatists

Why do terrorist take up arms?¶

1. other measures have not succeeded
2. perceived/real victimhood
3. minority persecution
4. unfair govt
5. misfits
6. sociopaths

Terrorists¶

• non-state actors
• they do not differentiate bw civillians vs the govt
• for them, the end justifies the means
• in reality they’re weak

Pathology of Terrorism¶

many terrorist groups in countries is funded by other countries

a lot of funding comes from diaspora and from illegal trades like fake clothing, merch, etc.

a lot of govts consider NGOs a forefront for terrorism funding

2 happenings of terrorism

1. as a method to meddle in another country’s affairs
2. as an organisation

Tibet¶

China has done the following tricks in Tibet

1. intermingle the population there
2. connect the country with the rest of the country

so the average tibetan doesn’t want an independent country anymore, cuz they’re anyways happy with what they’re getting rn

Comments