Maxwell School

Responding to Proliferation

PPA 705

Spring 2009

Course Time: Wednesday, 9:30 am-12:15 pm Prof. Renée de Nevers

Course Room: Eggers 070 Office Hours: Monday, 2-4 pm. or by appointment

Office: 333 Eggers Hall

Email: denevers@maxwell.syr.edu

Phone: 443-7093

Course Description:

This course will examine the dangers caused by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), with a primary focus on nuclear weapons, and strategies to address this threat. It will include an examination of theories about the spread of WMD, and efforts to control this spread both during and after the Cold War. We will look at both national and international efforts to prevent the spread of WMD, ranging from diplomacy and arms control to counterproliferation strategies. We will also look at the factors that have led some states to choose not to develop such weapons. The course will look at cases that raise fears about proliferation to both state and non-state actors. The goal is to provide students with a strong grasp of the challenges presented by proliferation, and the strategies that have been developed to address this problem.

The course is divided into two sections. In the first section, we will examine the nature of the problem of proliferation, looking at the debate over whether proliferation is a problem, why states decide to go nuclear or not, and the ways in which weapons of mass destruction proliferate. In the second section, we will examine strategies used to address the proliferation challenge, by both the U.S. and the international community. In each section, we will look at particular cases as illustrations of the issues.

Course Requirements and Grading:

The course requirements are the following:

1. Class Participation

This course is a seminar; attendance and participation are essential. While I will present and discuss course topics, students are expected to be actively involved in class discussion of the course materials. For this reason, students are expected to complete assigned readings prior to the class session, and to be prepared to contribute to discussions about the topics under consideration. Keep in mind that participation involves more than talking in class. Some people who voice their opinions freely may actually contribute less than those who say insightful things less frequently. Quantity is not quality.

2. Short Paper

Students will be expected to write a 7-10 page paper, typed, double spaced, with footnotes or endnotes, at the end of the first part of the course, which will synthesize the issues discussed up to this point. Instructions for the paper will be handed out separately. The one-page paper will be due on February 18.

3. Research Paper

Students will also write a research paper of 20-25 pages for the course on an issue related to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Students will have substantial leeway to pick a topic of interest to them, but these topics must be approved by me. More detailed instructions on writing the paper will be handed out in class. Students must turn in a one-page paper proposal explaining the question you wish to address, why you find it interesting or important, and how you expect to research this topic, on February 11. In addition, a 1-3 page outline of your research paper will be due on April 1. This is to ensure that you are making progress on your paper, and to give us a chance to discuss any problems you may be having in formulating questions or finding research materials.

The final research paper will be due on May 1, 4 pm.

4. Group project/presentations

There will be two group projects in class.

The first will be a debate among students on the scope of the threat presented by nuclear terrorism. This will be held in class on February 4. Further instructions will be handed out in class.

Second, as a group, students will evaluate how to address the weaknesses of the non-proliferation regime. The goal will be to assess the nature of the problem, the strengths and weaknesses of current and previous efforts to resolve it, and to make recommendations for improving current policies. This project will build on many of the class discussions we have had, and it is designed to push students to think about policy options for both the United States and the international community. In particular, students will be encouraged to develop recommendations that account for differences in view between members of the international community, including those of the P-5 on the UN Security Council, key European states, and third world states such as India, Brazil, and Egypt. Students will be expected to apply what they have learned in the course to this evaluation.

The group will both make an oral presentation on the case, and hand in a written version of the presentation. Further instructions on the project will be handed out in class 4 weeks before the presentation. The group presentations and discussion will take place either during the final class session or during finals week, if additional time is needed.

Grades will be based on the following:

Class participation: 20%

Short Paper: 20%

Group Project 1: 5%

Group Project 2: 25%

Research Paper: 30%

Assignments will penalized one half grade for each day they are late, except in the case of extreme illness or family emergency. Students must contact the professor prior to assignment due dates if they wish to request extensions due to emergencies.

Accommodation Policy and Academic Honesty

Students who are in need of disability-related academic accommodations must register with the Office of Disability Services (ODS), 804 University Avenue, Room 309, 315-443-4498. Students with authorized disability-related accommodations should provide a current Accommodation Authorization Letter from ODS to the instructor and review those accommodations with the instructor. Accommodations, such as exam administration, are not provided retroactively; therefore, planning for accommodations as early as possible is necessary. For further information, see the ODS website, Office of Disability Services http://disabilityservices.syr.edu/

The Syracuse University Academic Integrity Policy holds students accountable for the integrity of the work they submit. Students should be familiar with the Policy and know that it is their responsibility to learn about instructor and general academic expectations with regard to proper citation of sources in written work. The policy also governs the integrity of work submitted in exams and assignments as well as the veracity of signatures on attendance sheets and other verifications of participation in class activities. Serious sanctions can result from academic dishonesty of any sort. For more information and the complete policy, see http://academicintegrity.syr.edu

I take this extremely seriously. It is your responsibility as a student to understand what plagiarism is and how correctly to reference documents and attribute other peoples’ arguments that you are citing. Students found to cheat will receive an F for that assignment, and if the offense is particularly serious, the penalty may be more harsh as well. Students have a right to appeal.

Required Books:

Joseph Cirincione, Jon B. Wolfsthal, and Miriam Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear Biological and Chemical Threats (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2^nd Ed., 2005)

Scott Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed (New York: W.W. Norton and Co., 2003)

George Bunn and Christopher Chyba, eds., U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy: Confronting Today’s Threats (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2006)

Muthiah Alagappa, ed., The Long Shadow: Nuclear Weapons and Security in 21^st Century Asia (Palo, Alto, CA: Stanford University Press, 2008)

KSG Case Study #1425. “Decision to Denuclearize: How Ukraine Became a Non-Nuclear weapons State.”

Course Schedule and Readings

1. January 14: Introduction

I: The Problem

2. January 21: The Current Nuclear Picture: How did we get here, and is it a problem?

Readings:

Janne E. Nolan, “The Role of Nuclear Weapons During the Cold War,” in An Elusive Consensus, pp. 18-34 [handout].

Scott Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate Renewed, esp. Chs. 1-3, but skim responses.

Cirincione, Wolfsthal, and Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear Biological, and Chemical Threats, Ch. 1, “Global Trends,” pp. 3-25.

Christopher Chyba and Karthika Sasikumar, “A World of Risk: The Current Environment for U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy,” in Bunn and Chyba, ed.s, U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, pp. 1-33.

Recommended:

Muthiah Alagappa, ed., The Long Shadow, Ch.s 1 and 2, pp. 37-107.

3. January 28: Nuclear Weapons, Materials, and Effects

FILM: Hiroshima/Nagasaki August 1945

Readings:

“Nuclear Weapons and Materials” (Ch.3), in Cirincione, Wolfsthal, and Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals, pp. 45-54.

International Panel on Fissile Materials, “Appendix: Fissile Materials and Nuclear Weapons,” in Global Fissile Materials Report 2008: Scope and Verification of a Fissile Material (Cutoff) Treaty (2008), http://www.ipfmlibrary.org/gfmr08.pdf, pp. 102-109.

“Chapter II: A Nuclear Weapon over Detroit or Leningrad: A tutorial on the Effects of Nuclear Weapons,” in Office of Technology Assessment, The Effects of Nuclear War (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1979), pp. 15-46 [online].

Lynn Eden, Whole World on Fire: Organizations, Knowledge, and Nuclear Weapons Devastation (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2004), Ch. 1, pp. 15-36 [packet].

Mohammed ElBaradei, “Nuclear Energy: The Need for a New Framework,” (April 17, 2008) http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2008/ebsp2008n004.html.

John P. Holdren, “Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons: The Connection is Dangerous,” The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (January 1983), pp. 40-45.

Bernard I. Spinrad, “Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons: The Connection is Tenuous,” The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (February 1983), pp. 42-47.

Chaim Braun, “The Nuclear Energy Market and the Nonproliferation Regime,” The Nonproliferation Review (November 2006), pp. 627-644 [online].

Masafumi Takubo, “Wake Up, Stop Dreaming: Reassessing Japan’s Reprocessing Program,” The Nonproliferation Review (March 2008), pp. 71-94.

Recommended:

Lynn Eden, Whole World on Fire: Organizations, Knowledge, and Nuclear Weapons Devastation (Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press, 2004).

Michael Green and Katsuhisa Furukawa, “Japan: New Nuclear Realism,” in Alagappa, ed., The Long Shadow, pp. 347-372.

4. February 4: Why go nuclear - or not?

DEBATE: The Threat of Nuclear Terrorism

Readings:

Scott Sagan, “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb,” International Security, Winter 1996-97, pp. 54-86 [online].

William C. Potter and Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova, “Divining Nuclear Intentions: A Review Essay,” International Security (Summer 2008), pp. 139-169 [online].

Bunn and Chyba, ed.s, U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, pp. 127-131.

Matthew Bunn, “The Risk of Nuclear Terrorism – And Next Steps to Reduce the Danger,” Testimony to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate, April 2, 2008, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/bunn-nuclear-terror-risk-test-08.pdf

John Mueller, “The Atomic Terrorist: Assessing the Likelihood,” January 2008,

http://polisci.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller/APSACHGO.PDF

S. Paul Kapur, “Nuclear Terrorism: Prospects in Asia,” in Alagappa, The Long Shadow, pp 323-346.

“Argentina, Brazil, South Africa” (Chs. 19-21), in Cirincione, Wolfsthal, and Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals, pp. 383-417.

5. February 11: The Nuclear Powers: Competition and Control

Research Paper Proposal Due

Readings:

James J. Wirtz, “United States: Nuclear Policy at a Crossroads;” Yury Fedorov, “Russia: ‘New’ Inconsistent Nuclear Thinking and Policy;” Chu Shulong and Rong Yu, “China: Dynamic Minimum Deterrence,” all in Alagappa, ed., The Long Shadow, pp. 111-187

“Russia, China, France, The United Kingdom, The United States” (Chs. 6-10), in Cirincione, Wolfsthal, and Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals, pp. 121-217 (skim).

Pavel Podvig, “The Window of Vulnerability that Wasn’t: Soviet Military Building in the 1970s – a Research Note,” International Security (Summer 2008), pp. 118-138 [online].

Report of the Secretary of Defense Task Force on DoD Nuclear Weapons Management: Phase I: The Air Force’s Nuclear Mission. September 2008. Pp. 1-69, http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/Phase_I_Report_Sept_10.pdf.

II: Strategies for Addressing Proliferation

6. February 18: Deterrence

SHORT PAPER DUE

Readings:

Albert Wohlstetter, “The Delicate Balance of Terror,” Foreign Affairs (January 1959), pp. 211-234 [online].

Robert Jervis, “Deterrence, Rogue States, and U.S. Policy,” in T.V. Paul and Patrick Morgan, eds., Complex Deterrence: Theory and Practice in a New Era (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), pp.165-195 [packet].

David Holloway, “Deterrence, Preventive War, and Preemption,” in Bunn and Chyba, ed.s, U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, pp. 34-74.

Case: India and Pakistan

Sumit Ganguly, “Nuclear Stability in South Asia,” International Security (Fall 2008), pp. 45-70 [online].

Rajesh Rajagopalan, “India: The Logic of Assured Retaliation;” Feroz Hassan Khan and Peter R. Lavoy, “Pakistan: The Dilemma of Nuclear Deterrence,” in Alagappa ed., The Long Shadow, pp. 188-240.

Recommended:

“India, Pakistan” (Chs. 11-12), in Cirincione, Wolfsthal, and Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals, pp. 221-258.

“National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction,” December 2002 [online].

7. February 25: Denial: Nonproliferation

Readings:

“The International Nonproliferation Regime” (Ch. 2), in Cirincione, Wolfsthal, and Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals, AND App. A, pp. 27-44, 421-426.

George Bunn, “The Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime and Its History;” Christopher Chyba, Chaim Braun, and George Bunn, “New Challenges to the Nonproliferation Regime,” in Bunn and Chyba, ed.s, U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, pp. 75-161.

George Perkovich, “The End of the Nonproliferation Regime?” Current History (November 2006), pp. 355-362 [online].

Case: Israel

Avner Cohen, “Israel: A Sui Generis Proliferator,” in Alagappa, The Long Shadow, pp. 241-268.

Zeev Maoz, “The Mixed Blessing of Israel’s Nuclear Policy,” International Security (Fall 2003), pp. 44-77 [online].

“Israel” (Ch. 13), in Cirincione, Wolfsthal, and Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals, pp. 259-275.

Case: The Three-State Problem

George Perkovich, Jessica T. Matthews, Joseph Cirincione, Rose Gottemoeller, and Jon B. Wolfstahl, “Obligation Six: Solve the Three-State Problem,” in Universal compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security (Washington DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2005), http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/UC2.FINAL3.pdf, pp. 42-49.

8. March 4: Denial: Diplomacy and Rollback

Readings:

Charles B. Curtis, “Curbing the Demand for Mass Destruction,” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (2006), pp. 27-32 [online].

Case: Ukraine

“Decision to Denuclearize: How Ukraine Became a Non-Nuclear weapons State,” KSG Case Study #1425. (29 pp.) Available at Follett’s Orange Bookstore.

“Non-Russian Nuclear Successor States: Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine” (Ch. 18), in Cirincione, Wolfsthal, and Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals, pp. 365-382.

Case: Libya

Bruce Jentleson and Christopher A. Whytock, “Who ‘Won’ Libya? The Force-Diplomacy Debate and its Implications for Theory and Policy,” International Security (Winter 2005/6), pp 47-86 [online].

John Prados, “How Qadaffi Came Clean,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November/December 2005, pp. 26-33 [online].

“Libya” (Ch. 16), in Cirincione, Wolfsthal, and Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals, pp. 317-328.

March 11: Spring Break

9. March 18: Denial: Limiting Supply: Securing Nuclear Stockpiles

Readings:

Matthew Bunn Securing the Bomb 2008, Ch.s 2, 3, pp. 17-115 [online].

Commission of Emminent Persons, Reinforcing the Global Nuclear Order for Peace and Prosperity: The Role of the IAEA to 2020 and Beyond, GOV/2008/22-GC(52)/INF/4 (May 2008) pp. 1-11, 18-23, 27-32, http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/gov2008-22gc52inf-4.pdf .

Jack Caravelli, “Nuclear Threat Reduction: Cooperating in Troubled Times,” Survival (June-July 2008), pp. 19-25 [online].

Case: Project Vinca

Philipp C. Bleek, “Project Vinca: Lessons for Securing Civilian Nuclear Stockpiles,” The Nonproliferation Review, Fall/Winter 2003, pp.1-23 [online].

10. March 25: Denial: Verification and Compliance

Readings:

Pierre Goldschmidt, “IAEA Safeguards: Dealing Preventively with Non-Compliance” (Washington, DC: CEIP and the Harvard BCSIA, July 12, 2008), http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/gov2008-22gc52inf-4.pdf.

Global Fissile Materials Report 2007, Ch. 9, “Detection of Clandestine Fissile Material Production,” International Panel on Fissile Materials (Princeton, NJ: IPFM 2007), pp. 101-109, http://www.fissilematerials.org/ipfm/site_down/gfmr07.pdf.

Theodore Hirsch, “The IAEA Additional Protocol: What it is and Why it Matters,” Nonproliferation Review, Fall-Winter 2004, pp. 140-166 [online].

George Bunn, “Nuclear Safeguards: How Far can Inspectors Go?” IAEA Bulletin, Vol. 48 (2) (March 2007), pp., 49-55, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull482/pdfs/13GBunn.pdf.

Case: Iran

Devin T. Hagerty, “Iran: The Nuclear Quandary,” in Alagappa ed., The Long Shadow, pp. 296-322.

David Albright, Jacqueline Shire, and Paul Brannan, “IAEA Report on Iran: Enriched Uranium Output Steady; Centrifuge Numbers Expected to Increase Dramatically; Arak Reactor Verification Blocked,” ISIS Issue Brief, November 19, 2008,

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/ISIS_analysis_Nov-IAEA-Report.pdf.

“Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006), 1747 (2007), 1803 (2008) and 1835 (2008) in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” IAEA Report GOV/2008/59, November 19, 2008, http://www.isis-online.org/publications/iran/iaea-iranreport-111908.pdf.

George Perkovich, “Iran Says ‘No’: Now What?” Carnegie Endowment Policy Brief, No. 63 (September 2008), http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=22115&prog=zgp&proj=znpp.

“Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities,” National Intelligence Estimate (November 2007) (8 pp.) [online].

Patrick Clawson and Michael Eisenstadt, “Halting Iran’s Nuclear Programme: The Military Option,” Survival (October-November 2008), pp. 13-17 [online].

Dan Reiter, “Preventive Attacks Against Nuclear Programs and the “Success” at Osiraq,” Nonproliferation Review (July 2005), pp. 355-371 [online].

David E. Sanger, “US rejected Aid for Israeli Raid on Iranian Nuclear Site,” New York Times, January 11, 2009 [online].

David Kay, “The Iranian Fallout,” The National Interest, (September/October 2008), pp. 11-19 [online].

11. April 1: Denial: Export Controls

RESEARCH PAPER OUTLINE DUE

Readings:

Bunn and Chyba, Bunn and Chyba, ed.s, U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, pp, 166-169

George Perkovich, Jessica Mathews, Joseph Cirincione, Rose Gottemoeller, and John B. Wolfsthal, Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security, pp. 116-125 [online].

Danielle Peterson; Richard S. Goorevich; Rich Hooper; Lawrence Scheinman; James W. Tape, “Export Controls and International Safeguards: Strengthening Nonproliferation through interdisciplinary Integration,” The Nonproliferation Review (November 2008), pp. 515-527 [online].

James A. Lewis, “Looking Back: Multilateral Arms Transfer Restraint: The Limits of Cooperation,” Arms Control Today, November 2005 [online].

“Missile Proliferation” (Ch. 5), in Cirincione, Wolfsthal, and Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals, AND App. D, pp. 83-117, 443-450.

Kate O’Neill, “Radioactive ‘Trade’: Globalizing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” SAIS Review (Winter/Spring 2002), pp. 157-168 [online].

Case: the India-U.S. Civilian Nuclear Agreement

William J. Burns, Testimony on “The U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative,” U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, September 18, 2008, http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2008/BurnsTestimony080918p.pdf.

John C. Rood, Testimony on “The U.S.-India Civil Nuclear Cooperation Initiative,” U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, September 18, 2008, http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2008/RoodTestimony080918p.pdf.

David Albright and Paul Brannan, Indian Nuclear Export Controls and Information Security: Important Questions Remain, ISIS Report, September 18, 2008, http://www.isis-online.org/publications/southasia/India_18September2008.pdf.

Daryl G. Kimbal, “The NSG and Sensitive Nuclear Fuel Cycle Technologies in the Aftermath of the U.S.-Indian Nuclear Cooperation Deal,” Remarks for M.I.T. Workshop on Internationalizing Uranium Enrichment Facilities, Oct. 21, 2008, Cambridge, MA, Wade Boese, “Nuclear Deals Adding up for South Asia,” Arms Control Today (November 2008) http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_11/SouthAsia_deals.

Case: The A.Q. Khan Network

Mark Fitzpatrick, “Nuclear Black Markets: Can We Win the Game of Catch-Up with Determined Proliferators?” Testimony to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia and Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade, June 27 2008 [online].

William J. Broad and David E. Sanger, “In Nuclear Net’s Undoing, A Web of Shadowy Deals,” New York Times, August 25, 2008 [online].

Chaim Brown and Christopher Chyba, “Proliferation Rings: New Challenges to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime,” International Security, Fall 2004, pp 5-49 [online].

12. April 8: Pre-emption: Counterproliferation and Interdiction

Readings:

Stephen G. Rademaker, “Proliferation Security Initiative: An Early Assessment,” Hearing Before House International Relations Committee,” 109^th Congress, 1^st Session, June 9, 2005 (29 pp.) [online].

“Remarks by National Security Advisor Stephen J. Hadley at the Proliferation Security Initiative Fifth Anniversary Senior Level Meeting,” Washington, D.C. May 28, 2008 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080528-3.html.

Case: North Korea

Michael Mazarr, “The Long Road to Pyongyang,” Foreign Affairs (September/October 2007), pp. 75-94 [online].

John S. Park and Dong Sun Lee, “North Korea: Existential Deterrence and Diplomatic Leverage,” in Alagappa ed., The Long Shadow, pp. 269-298.

Christopher R. Hill, “The Six Party Process: Progress and Perils in North Korea's Denuclearization,” Testimony before House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment and Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade, Washington, DC, October 25, 2007, http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2007/94204.htm.

Christopher R. Hill, “North Korean Six-Party Talks and Implementation Activities,” Statement before the Senate Committee on Armed Services, Washington, DC, July 31, 2008 http://www.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rm/2008/07/107590.htm.

John Bolton and James Kelly, “Standoff at the 38^th Parallel,” The National Interest (November/December 2008), pp.25-35 [online].

“North Korea” (Ch. 14), in Cirincione, Wolfsthal, and Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals, pp. 279-293.

13. April 15: Defense: Missile Defenses and U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy

Readings:

Missile Defense:

W.K.H. Panofsky and Dean A. Wilkening, “Defenses against Nuclear Attack on the United States,” in Bunn and Chyba, US Nuclear Weapons Policy, pp. 220-247.

Philip Coyle, “The Limits and Liabilities of Missile Defense,” Center for Defense Information, November 15, 2006 [online].

Dennis Gormley, “Missile Contagion,” Survival (August-September 2008), pp. 137-154 [online].

Wade Boese and Miles A. Pomper, “Defending Missile Defense: An Interview with Missile Defense Agency Director Lt. Gen. Henry Obering,” Arms Control Today, November 2005, [online].

U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy:

Roger Speed and Michael May, “Assessing the United States’ Nuclear Posture,” in Bunn and Chyba, ed.s, U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, pp. 248-296.

Keir Lieber and Daryl G. Press, “The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Primacy,” International Security (Spring 2006), pp. 7-44 [online].

Hans Kristensen, “U.S. Strategic War Planning after 9/11,” The Nonproliferation Review (July 2007), pp. 373-390 [online].

Ivo Daalder and Jan Lodal, “The Logic of Zero,” Foreign Affairs (November/December 2008), pp. 80-95 [online].

14. April 22: Conclusion and Presentations:

GROUP PROJECT PRESENTATIONS IN CLASS

RESEARCH PAPER DUE: May 1, 4 pm.