Pivotal Decisions Chapter 7 Weapons of Mass Destruction

Pivotal Decisions Chapter 7: Weapons of Mass Destruction In this exercise, you will face a complicated decision with grave consequences. Some of these decisions are genuine historical dilemmas that world leaders have faced. Others are possible dilemmas that have not arisen but that you can grapple with using the tools and understanding you acquired reading this chapter. When you have settled on a response to each scenario, click on your decision. When you do, you will be brought to a discussion of the pros and cons of your decision. Choose wisely! Decide!

Pivotal Decision 1 Ø Imagine you are Leonid Brezhnev during the 1970 s. You are the Soviet Premier at the heart of the Cold War. In the midst of a nuclear standoff with the United States, you have many different advisors pushing you in different directions. Which tact do you take for the war? Ø Background information: Ø SALT I, a major treaty between your government and Richard Nixon’s, was signed recently, in May of 1972. The agreement limited missile defense and missile quantities, and improved relations between the two governments, but left both sides with second-strike capability, massive destructive capacity, and enough MIRVs to avoid warhead reductions. Ø At this point, while both sides have thousands of warheads, the United States owns the numerical advantage, with nearly three times the number of warheads as the Soviet Union. However, the Soviet Union has much larger bombs, and actually possesses a greater total tonnage (or total explosive power) than the United States. Ø After the high tension and near-crises of the 1960 s, the Cold War has been relatively incident-free for the last decade or so. Ø What do you do? Ø Continue building up a massive nuclear arsenal, pursuant to MAD. The United States is an enemy and may strike at any moment. The Soviet Union must have a strong enough arsenal to retaliate on a massive scale even after a US first strike, since the Soviet Union can only deter the United States with a second-strike capacity able to inflict unacceptable damage on the United States. Ø Enhance the Soviet Union’s nuclear war-fighting capability. War may well be inevitable, and if it comes, the Soviet Union should be prepared. Augment and modernize the nuclear arsenal, look into missile defense, and further disperse missile locations. Ø Launch nuclear attacks against the United States. War is likely inevitable and it is best to gain a first-strike advantage. Ø Take more direct steps toward bilateral nuclear reduction negotiations with the United States. The only safe way out of this conflict is to diffuse it, and the only safe way to diffuse it is bilaterally. Ø Unilaterally reduce the size of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. The Soviet Union ought to take the lead on this, and demonstrate a desire and a willingness to end the Cold War. The United States will likely follow, and if it does not, the reductions can be reversed.

Continue building up a massive nuclear arsenal, pursuant to MAD. The United States is an enemy and may strike at any moment. The Soviet Union must have a strong enough arsenal to retaliate on a massive scale even after a US first strike, since the Soviet Union can only deter the United States with a second-strike capacity able to inflict unacceptable damage on the United States. PROS Ø If the United States does attack, the Soviet Union will be prepared to respond accordingly. With enough weapons, the Soviet Union will be prepared for anything. Ø With a massive arsenal, the Soviet Union will be able to effectively deter the United States. Ø More warheads will give you more negotiating leverage with the United States. The closer you get to matching the size of the US arsenal, the easier it will be to make parallel agreements. Ø The Soviet Union has fewer warheads than the United States. Reducing that disparity will increase Soviet influence abroad. Furthermore, closing the numerical gap will increase the Soviet yield advantage subtly but decisively. I changed my mind! Go back! CONS Ø Building up the arsenal, especially in the aftermath of bilateral reductions, may be seen as an act of aggression by the United States, and could increase the risk of the United States beginning a nuclear war. Ø Increasing warhead production so soon after SALT I could undermine future nuclear negotiation efforts. Ø Your actions may prompt the United States to build up its own arsenal, thereby simply exacerbating the arms race. Ø More nuclear weapons means more room for accident or theft, and an unintentional detonation could mean nuclear war. Ø The Cold War can only end by peace treaty or in devastation, and a nuclear buildup will not likely lead to a peace treaty. Onto the next Pivotal Decision!

Enhance the Soviet Union’s nuclear war-fighting capability. War may well be inevitable, and if it comes, the Soviet Union should be prepared. Augment and modernize the nuclear arsenal, look into missile defense, and further disperse missile locations. PROS Ø If war does come, the Soviet Union will be prepared to fight, and may have the upper hand. Ø A modernized arsenal will increase both Soviet war-fighting capacity and the efficacy of the Soviet deterrent. Ø A missile defense system would provide some element of protection from a US attack. Ø This option essentially mitigates the repercussions of a worst-case scenario. I changed my mind! Go back! CONS Ø Enhancing war-fighting capacity undermines strategic stability, and may increase the chances of nuclear war. Ø Missile defense reduces the United States’ second-strike capability, which weakens strategic stability. Ø Augmenting and modernizing the arsenal could prompt the United States to take parallel actions, which will both further ignite the arms race and increase the chances of war. Ø A nuclear war, even with the upper hand, would be devastating to the Soviet Union, leading to untold millions of deaths and social and economic catastrophe that may never be reversed. Onto the next Pivotal Decision!

Launch nuclear attacks against the United States. War is likely inevitable, and it is best to gain a first-strike advantage. PROS Ø The United States will not gain any advantage that might come with a first strike. I changed my mind! Go back! CONS Ø You have started a nuclear war. The United States will strike back and the Soviet Union will be devastated. Ø Millions of civilians on both sides will be killed in what will likely skyrocket past any previous war by death toll. Ø Societies and economies around the world will be devastated. Ø The Soviet Union will forever be known as the instigator of the world’s first (and perhaps only) nuclear war. Ø If the conflict spirals out of control, most of modern society could be destroyed. The United States, Canada, Europe, Russia, and China could end up in ruins. Onto the next Pivotal Decision!

Take more direct steps toward bilateral nuclear reduction negotiations with the United States. The only safe way out of this conflict is to diffuse it, and the only safe way to diffuse it is bilaterally. PROS Ø Negotiating nuclear reductions may well be the best way to avoid a nuclear conflict. Ø Bilateral reductions will diffuse the situation without ever putting the Soviet Union at a strategic disadvantage. Ø Your populace and the international community will likely commend your efforts to end the war (with your populace especially enthused about doing so on Soviet terms). I changed my mind! Go back! CONS Ø Some hard-liners may see you as weak. Ø A smaller Soviet arsenal, some would argue, decreases Soviet security by decreasing both the Soviet deterrent effect and Soviet war-fighting capacity Onto the next Pivotal Decision!

Unilaterally reduce the size of the Soviet nuclear arsenal. The Soviet Union ought to take the lead on this, and demonstrate a desire and a willingness to end the Cold War. The United States will likely follow, and if it does not, the reductions can be reversed. PROS Ø Your action sends a clear message to the United States that you are eager to end the conflict. Ø If the United States follows, it could be an efficient way to diffuse the conflict and end the war. Ø If the United States does not follow or declare its intentions to follow promptly, the Soviet Union can cease or reverse the reductions. Ø Your government will receive credit for taking the first step both domestically and internationally. Ø You can select how to make the reductions without any treaty obligations or US pressure. I changed my mind! Go back! CONS Ø The reductions may, at least, temporarily, put the Soviet Union at a slight strategic disadvantage. Ø If the United States does not follow, you will either remain at a disadvantage or bear any financial costs associated with reversing the reductions. Ø Taking this course requires accepting everything that comes with a reduced arsenal, including a weaker deterrent threat and a reduced war-fighting capability. Onto the next Pivotal Decision!

Pivotal Decision 2 Ø Imagine you are the leader of a small country, widely viewed by the international community as a rogue state. You feel increasing political and military pressure from the states around you, and you are looking for a powerful new weapon to deter and/or counter their aggression. Which type of weapon are you going to funnel your military research and development funds into? Ø Chemical weapons. They are less dangerous and less frowned upon than nuclear weapons, but will still provide your country with protection. Ø Biological weapons. Also less dangerous and less frowned upon than nuclear weapons, and better for subtly attacking your neighbors’ populaces. Ø Background information: Ø The United Nations has placed sanctions on your country for human rights violations in the aftermath of Ø Nuclear weapons. This is the only option that will your government’s brutal crackdown on would-be truly provide your country with an effective opposition voters in your country’s most recent deterrent. Plus, being a member of the nuclear election, an election widely known to be farcical after you won your fourth consecutive term in a landslide club brings much influence and prestige on the victory, despite your widely unpopular leadership. international stage. Ø You have seven significant regional neighbors. The largest is nuclear-armed, two have chemical Ø Cyber warfare. You can attack your neighbors weapons stockpiled, one has biological weapons, undetected, and undermine their NBC capacity. and the other three have no such weapons. All seven Plus, international laws on cyber warfare not have cyber warfare capacity in differing measures. Ø Your regional neighbors are demanding that you step as explicit as those on nuclear, biological, and down and that your country open its economy to the chemical weapons. global market and its political system to genuine democracy. Your advisors fear it may come to war. Ø Which weapon do you invest in?

Chemical weapons. They are less dangerous and less frowned upon than nuclear weapons, but will still provide your country with protection. PROS Ø Ø Ø CONS Chemical weapons are formidable weapons, and will form a basic deterrent threat. If your neighbors do engage militarily, and especially if they use chemical weapons, you will have a greater capacity to respond. The international community does not bear the same hostility toward the production of chemical weapons as it does toward the production of nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons are easier and less expensive to produce than nuclear weapons. Chemical weapons are more dangerous than most conventional weapons to your enemies. Ø Ø Ø Ø . The international community strongly dislikes chemical weapons, even if nuclear weapons are worse. Chemical weapons, while cheaper and easier to produce than nuclear weapons, are still expensive and difficult to produce. Chemical weapons provide less of a deterrent effect than nuclear weapons, and bring less clout on the international stage. Chemical weapons have the capacity to create major humanitarian disasters, and can inflict unspeakable harm on civilian populations. If your neighbors invade, you may turn to chemical weapons, which will escalate the war and lead to far more civilian casualties and greater destruction. Chemical weapons are unpredictable, and could end up harming your own people even if used against enemy combatants. Given your reputation, possession of WMD may cause your neighbors to unite against you. I changed my mind! Go back!

Biological weapons. Also less dangerous and less frowned upon than nuclear weapons, and better for subtly attacking your neighbors’ populaces. PROS Ø Ø Ø CONS Biological weapons are formidable weapons, and will form a basic deterrent threat. If your neighbors do engage militarily, and especially if they use biological weapons, you will have a greater capacity to respond. The international community does not bear the same hostility toward the production of biological weapons as it does toward the production of nuclear weapons. Biological weapons are easier and less expensive to produce than nuclear weapons. Biological weapons are more dangerous to your enemies than most conventional weapons. Ø The international community strongly dislikes biological weapons, even if nuclear weapons are worse. Ø Biological weapons, while cheaper and easier to produce than nuclear weapons, are still expensive and difficult to produce. Ø Biological weapons provide less of a deterrent effect than nuclear weapons, and bring less clout on the international stage. Ø Biological weapons have the capacity to create major humanitarian disasters, and can inflict unspeakable harm on civilian populations. Ø If your neighbors invade, you may turn to biological weapons, which will escalate the war and lead to far more civilian casualties and greater destruction. Ø Biological weapons are unpredictable, and could end up harming your own people even if used against enemy combatants. Ø Given your reputation, possession of WMD may cause your neighbors to unite against you. I changed my mind! Go back!

Nuclear weapons. This is the only option that will truly provide your country with an effective deterrent. Plus, being a member of the nuclear club brings much influence and prestige on the international stage. PROS CONS Ø Nuclear weapons provide a major deterrent effect. Ø Possession of nuclear weapons brings substantial clout in the international community. Ø Possession of nuclear weapons will give you a strategic advantage over almost all of your neighbors. Ø Pursuing nuclear weapons will solidify your status as an international pariah. Ø Nuclear weapons are very expensive and extremely difficult to produce. Ø Other countries are likely to try to sabotage your nuclear efforts. Ø You will need to choose between the elevated costs of a secret nuclear program and the international outrage caused by a public program. Ø If you were ever to use nuclear weapons, you would be responsible for an unprecedented violation of international law, a massive humanitarian crisis, and global social and economic shockwaves that could rock the international system. Ø Given your reputation, possession of WMD may cause your neighbors to unite against you. I changed my mind! Go back!

Cyber warfare. You can attack your neighbors undetected, and undermine their NBC capacity. Plus, international laws on cyber warfare not as explicit as those on nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. PROS CONS Ø Cyber warfare can be more difficult to detect than the pursuit of WMD. Ø Cyber warfare can subtly undermine rival economies and military programs. Ø Enhancing your cyber warfare capacity will not bring the kind of international backlash that pursuing a WMD program would. Ø Cyber warfare, if undetected, could be actively used to devastate your enemies for the foreseeable future. Ø Cyber warfare is a dynamic, flexible tool that can be used for a variety of purposes. Ø If your attacks are detected, you raise the likelihood of devastating return attacks. Ø As technology improves, detection of cyber warfare is improving. Ø The more aggressive you are with your cyber attacks, the easier the attacks will be to detect, and the more likely your neighbors are to respond in kind or even unite against you. Ø Cyber warfare can cause massive humanitarian damage, as well as major social, economic, military, or government dysfunction. I changed my mind! Go back!