Dealing with Contemporary Nuclear Challenges

Question 1

State’s Rights to NW’s Under Article VI NPT

Context: Given that no actor has a monopoly on violence in the international system, it is difficult to justify central governance on the issues of states rights.

Ahmadinejad - “if they have it, why can’t we? If it is so bad, then why do they have it?”

Answer 1

1. Daniel Joyney - From a legal perspective, because Article VI says that Nuclear Energy is ok, this opens the door for abuses, breakout capabilities and nuclear latency
2. Michael Quinlan - The right to security is important for a state to have, and in the context of surivial, and not a security dilemma, states should have the right to protect themselves
3. Graham Allison - Lack of “supply side constraints” means Nuclear Energy threshold has high potential for breakout, should be tightly regulated by IAEA-governed fuel bank

Question 2

Threats of Nuclear Terrorism - How Serious?

Answer 2

1. Andrew Futter - This is the most pressing issue of the global nuclear order, threatens peace and stability
2. Graham Allison - stopping nuclear terror is a matter of states willpowper, not a question of possbility, it can certainly be done
3. William Potter/Charles Ferguson - There are other, more pressing issues than nuclear terrorism, and Washington policy is too fixated on non-state actors
4. Robin Frost - Threat of nuclear terror is overstated, and relies too much on assumptions of ‘ease’ of creating dirty bombs and access to materials, no evidence for black market either

Question 3

Implications of an Iranian/North Korean Nuclear Weapon

Context:

Answer 3

1. Kenneth Waltz (Proliferation Optimism) - An Iranian nuclear weapon will bring greater power balance to the region, making it more stable
2. Colin Kahl - Too dangerous if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, and the risk of it handing technology to terrorist groups is too high
3. Matthew Kroening - The stakes are such that all Iranian nuclear facilities must be eliminated, even if this means invasion, as dealing with a nuclear armed-Iran is the worse case scenario

Question 4

Viewing Rogue States/Actors as ‘Outliers’

Context: International community has often misread the intentions of states such as Iran/North Korea, and Washington policy is fixated on non-state actors. Viewing these players under RAM, or not, can have an impact.

Answer 4

Iran/NK as Rational:
1. Regime survival is central to both states, they know that use/development of NW’s has its costs

2. Regime has got NW’s for deterrence purposes against the US and regional rivals
3. Aggressive nuclear posturing is about domestic concerns and political concessions

Iran/NK as Irrational:
1. Highly centralised power in both states, risk of use and political model is higher

2. Instability within either state could see NW’s used as a display of force
3. Both states could pass technology on to other states/non-state actors, difficult to control this