COLGATE UNIVERSITY
The Advent of the Atomic Bomb
CORE 138 (+ Extended Study to Japan)
Syllabus
Spring 2005
Instructor:
Karen Harpp
TA: Starr “Scooter” Waymack
Office:
Lathrop 408
Phone:
x7211
Email:
[email protected]
Office Hours: by appointment (email or voicemail)
The best way to contact me is by email. We will communicate as a class by
electronic mail, including changes in assignments and class schedule, so it is essential
that check your email on a very regular basis, on the rather rare chance that you do not
already. I do not have set office hours, because I’m around pretty much all the time.
You can either call or send email to set up an appointment for a guaranteed meeting, or
come by anytime (with no guarantee that I will be there at that moment, but it's likely).
Location and Meeting Times
Mondays and Wednesdays 1:20-2:35 PM in Lathrop 404
There will be a few extra meetings in the evenings for special events that need
more than the normal class time and one required field trip during the term. See the
syllabus for tentative dates on some of these events; others will be announced well ahead
of time.
Course Description
This course will examine the
scientific evolution of nuclear
weapons and the historical context
in which they were developed.
World War II made urgent the
exploitation of atomic power for
military purposes. Topics include
the scientific thought that made
harnessing nuclear energy
possible, the political pressure that
shaped that process, the
ramifications of the bomb for
science and politics during and
immediately after the war, and the subsequent impact of nuclear bomb use on the
The Advent of the Atomic Bomb
COLGATE UNIVERSITY
population and the environment. If time allows, additional consideration will be made of
post-WWII developments of nuclear weapons, weapons testing, and nuclear power
generation, with an emphasis on their environmental impact.
Texts
1) Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb. Available at the Colgate
bookstore (and Amazon.com or BarnesandNoble.com; it is an easy book to find used).
Required.
2) John Hersey, Hiroshima. Same as above. Required.
The following are for the extended study trip:
3) John Dower, Embracing Defeat. Same as above. Required.
4) George Feifer, The Battle of Okinawa. Same as above. Required.
Course Requirements: Bomb Class
There will be several different kinds of assignments in this course; some will
emphasize writing and reading skills, others will focus on presentation and organization,
and some will include a research component. Most of them are part of the class activities
section listed below, and will be assigned as we progress through the semester. That
means that you will often have homework for the next class in addition to keeping up
with the readings. To pass the course, you must complete all the assignments; lack of
completion of any one assignment may result in failure. This course counts for one
credit toward graduation, in the Core Scientific Perspectives category.
1st exam
Final
Class activities/assignments
15%
15%
15%
This includes a required field trip during the semester, WWII Interview project, Atomic
Scientist assignment, Hypothetical Bomb Scenario, and others to be announced.
Road to the Bomb Project assignments
Film series discussion participation (10 films minimum)
Participation
Final Project
Total
15%
15%
10%
15%
100%
Course Requirements: Extended Study Trip
There will be several different kinds of assignments in this course; some will
emphasize writing and reading skills, others will focus on presentation and organization,
and some will include a research component. Most of them are part of the class activities
section listed below, and will be assigned as we progress through the semester. That
means that you will often have homework for the next class in addition to keeping up
with the readings. To pass the course, you must complete all the assignments; lack of
completion of any one assignment may result in failure. The extended study part of the
course counts for ½ credit toward, as an Asian Studies course.
Peace Park Project
Kyoto Project
Hiroshima Project
Nagasaki Project
15%
15%
15%
15%
The Advent of the Atomic Bomb
COLGATE UNIVERSITY
Nara Project
Okinawa Project
Participation
Total
10%
15%
15%
100%
The approximate grading scale for both courses will be:
A
= 90%
A/B = 85%
B
= 80%
B/C = 75%
C
= 70%
C/D = 65%
D
= 60%.
The letter grade awarded to those who fall in an intermediate range (e.g., A/B or
85 - 90%) will depend upon total points, as well as my perception of that student’s effort,
participation, reliability, and aptitude. As a reminder, a grade of C means your work is
acceptable; it just means you have room to improve. Do not get distressed at a grade of
C, just crank up the effort and attention to detail. Always feel free to come discuss with
me how you can improve your work. The grade of A requires exceptional work, in all
aspects of the assignment.
Exams
The exams are designed to make sure you understand the nuts and bolts content of
the issues we are discussing. They will be based primarily on material we’ve discussed
explicitly in class, as well as information from the textbooks in detail.
Class Activities
We will be doing lots of different kinds of activities in class. Sometimes there will
be short assignments associated with these, either beforehand to prepare for them or
afterward as follow-up investigations; some of them we’ll finish during class. Others will
be more substantial, and require several days’ worth of preparation; all details will be
described in class well ahead of time. The sum of these assignments will make up a
significant part of your final grade (see above). There will also be a required field trip,
details to be announced well ahead of time (to Washington, DC). Finally, you will be
required to attend several of the events related to the Center for Ethics and World
Societies program entitled Weapons and War, also to be announced well ahead of time.
For those Weapons and War events that you are not required to attend, you will receive
extra credit if you attend them and then send me a brief email (a few sentences)
summarizing your reactions and thoughts to the event. This includes films in the
Weapons and War series.
Film Series Discussion (via Blackboard)
We will be using the BLACKBOARD software for exploration of a film series
that will be running throughout the term (found at http://bb6.colgate.edu). The films
represent many different cultural and moral issues related to the development and use of
The Advent of the Atomic Bomb
COLGATE UNIVERSITY
the atomic bomb, from the first films made after the bomb’s use to depictions of the
construction of the bomb and of the horrors of the World Wars, to the Cold War…The
idea is that we will use film to illustrate the situation leading up to the use of the bombs
in 1945, to get into the mindset of the American people, and then to trace the
incorporation of the concept of such powerful weapons into the culture. We will also look
at some films made by Japanese filmmakers and some collaborative efforts between
Japanese and North Americans. There are many films to choose from in constructing this
series; the ones presented this term represent a cross-section of styles and eras, as well as
goals of the filmmakers.
Some details: you are responsible for attending 10 of the films in the series
(see choice system below), and then participating in subsequent web-based
discussions about the film and its relevance to the topics in the course. To get credit
for each film, you must not only watch the film in its entirety, but you must engage in the
web-based discussion to a thoughtful, significant, and substantive degree. You must do
the following to get credit:
1. Make an independent, thoughtful comment of your own about the film and its
relevance to the topics in the course, such as how it affected you, how you
reacted to it, how it illustrates some important point, etc.;
2. Respond to at least TWO additional comments made by other people,
continuing their thread of the discussion. Obviously this means you will have
to return to the Blackboard film site several times to accomplish this goal. The
conversations get extremely interesting, so this is hardly a chore. You must
make at least one of your comments on a different day from the other 2, to
encourage you going back to Blackboard for conversations, and not just
monologues.
3. Do all this within 1 week of the film’s showing.
4. Because of the nature of the discussion, it’s essential that you watch the film
during the week in which it is scheduled on the syllabus. If you cannot make
the showing in the evening, you may watch it at Case Library on reserve.
5. Your participation in these discussion groups is expected, and will constitute a
significant part of your final grade. Should you watch or participate in less
than the full number of films, you will receive NO credit for this
component of the course. Should you attend more than the required number
of films and participate in the web-based discussion, you will be awarded
extra credit. So take this seriously, be thoughtful and forthright, and be
absolutely sure to check the Blackboard site frequently for new issues and
responses to your comments. Your grade will be evaluated based on the
thoughtfulness of your comments and on your regular participation. If you get
into the habit of participating in these discussions early in the term, we will
have a very exciting class and some dynamic debates.
6. We may have a number of Colgate alumni participating in the web-based
discussions about the films as well. They are doing this voluntarily out of
sheer interest and a desire to interact with you. Just consider them as equal
members of the class and treat them courteously and appropriately. Do not
hesitate to respond to their comments as readily as you would to other
students’ comments; just speak your mind.
The Advent of the Atomic Bomb
COLGATE UNIVERSITY
There are additional films being shown around campus in various film series
(Center for Ethics, Weapons and War course, Peace Studies, etc.). I’ll announce these in
class and if you attend, you will also receive extra credit.
Project on Nuclear Ramifications
In addition to requirements described above, you will be responsible for a project
related to nuclear issues, near the end of the term. The project will be of your own design
entirely, with a focus on the effects/ramifications of atomic bomb and atomic power
development...be they environmental, cultural, psychological, historical, political.... It
may be anything from a community service project, to producing and/or acting in a play
(ask me for suggestions!), to collecting data (e.g., about fallout effects from nuclear
testing) and drawing a conclusion, constructing a model, making a video, producing some
original bomb-related art, researching the history of the atomic concept as it appears in
advertising or music, investigating nuclear proliferation questions such as the
development of new weapons, exploring the connections to Japan and how the bomb has
affected Japanese history and culture...as long as it relates directly to the science of the
atomic bomb and its effects on humankind.
You will have to clear the idea with me in some detail. At that time, we will
discuss what type of written explanatory material must accompany the work. Your
imagination is the only restriction on this project! You may work alone or in pairs; if you
work in pairs, the project should be proportionally larger than if you work alone (if you
do something like produce a play, then we can increase the group size). In addition, all
members of the team will receive the same grade for the project; a component of the final
grade will come from the class’ evaluation of the project. We will have an exhibit of the
projects near the end of the term, science-fair style. You must also provide a written
summary of the project and exhibit. I’ll have more details for you later in the term.
All written assignments in this course (including the project) must be word
processed. Feel free to email all written work to me directly. I will help you with all
these details if you are unfamiliar with them.
See accompanying schedule for due dates.
Participation and Attendance
Your participation grade is based on several different components. Atmosphere
and morale in a course such as this are affected by your attendance and attention during
class as well as your contributions in the web-based discussions. If you are drowsy or
inattentive in class, or if you are habitually or even occasionally late to or absent from
class, your grade will be adversely affected:
• Students with more than two unexcused absences from class will be penalized by
a lowering of their course grade by one step (e.g., A will become A-; B+ will become B,
etc.);
• Students with more than three unexcused absences will be penalized by a
lowering of their course grade by a full letter grade (e.g., A will become B, B+ will
become C+, etc.);
• Students with an excessive number of unexcused absences will receive an F in the
course;
• Students who habitually come to class late or are drowsy or inattentive in class
will be penalized by a lowering of their course grade by up to a full letter grade.
The Advent of the Atomic Bomb
COLGATE UNIVERSITY
Here’s another useful tidbit: if you have had a particularly rough night before class,
and think you will be having big problems staying awake and alert, don’t hide on the
back. Instead, sit near the front of the class or just tell me before we start. That way, you
are letting me know that you are at least making a major effort to stay with us and be
involved despite intense fatigue. As a result, you let me know you’re doing your best and
I give you the benefit of the doubt.
You may obtain an excuse for missing class by contacting me in person, by
phone, or by email if you will need to be absent. Excused absences are of two varieties:
1) Classes missed due to illness or personal calamity. You may obtain an excuse
by contacting me. Supporting documentation ought to be forthcoming from either the
Health Center or the Dean of Student’s Office.
2) Classes missed due to athletic or conflicting academic reasons. You will need
to notify me at least 48 hours in advance.
It is not difficult to get an excused absence for the class; all I ask is that you be
courteous and let me know ahead of time for things such as sporting events, other
academic conflicts, family visits, and so forth. You must contact me at least 48 hours in
advance for a valid excused absence (email, voicemail, or in person). If there is an
emergency, simply contact me as soon as you can, within reason. You should deal with
the problem first; don’t worry about getting in touch with me until things have cleared up.
I expect you to be prepared for class every time we meet. This means doing the
readings assigned for that week carefully. You should have finished the week’s assigned
readings by Thursday of each week, but should be part way through it on Tuesday.
Occasionally I will ask people to summarize the readings and their reactions to them for
the class, and some of the web-based discussions may include topics from the readings;
as a result it is critical that you keep up to date with the readings. We do not have even
remotely enough time to consider all the issues of these complex topics, so the textbook
provides invaluable perspective and details on the topics we are focusing on in class. This
doesn’t mean you should remember every single detail from the text; it’s a tremendously
detailed book, and you should focus on the big picture. Nevertheless it should be clear
that you have done the reading at all times. Please bring any questions that come up
during your readings to class for us to discuss, anytime.
I also expect you to be alert and enthusiastic during class, and to contribute to
class discussions frequently. Oftentimes we'll work in small groups, where you should be
an active participant. In addition, if you have specific directions or topics you’d like to
see in the class, let’s discuss it and I’ll do what I can to accommodate your ideas.
A word about Academic Honesty….
It’s very simple, really. I expect 100% academic honesty from each and every one
of you. Don’t cheat, don’t make up information or sources, don’t plagiarize, and don’t
help anyone do any of the above. We will discuss in class the details of how to cite
information you have researched, so make absolutely sure that you understand that
information. If you have any doubts or questions, it is your responsibility to come see me
for clarification.
I have absolutely no patience for anyone who cheats in classes in any way.
Everything you hand in must be your own, original work; if someone helps you with your
work, with proofreading, with ideas, then you must acknowledge them. I encourage you
The Advent of the Atomic Bomb
COLGATE UNIVERSITY
to work with other people, to bounce ideas off each other, to brainstorm, to read each
other’s writing; all you have to do is acknowledge that in the work you turn in.
The Enola Gay, the plane that delivered the first atomic weapon used in
warfare to Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945
Signed by the pilot and commander, Paul Tibbets.
The Advent of the Atomic Bomb
COLGATE UNIVERSITY
And finally, a reminder....
HOW TO DO HIGH QUALITY WORK
The grades you receive for your work depends only in part on 'getting the right answer'.
In fact, in this class, we often don't know any of the answers; we are looking at natural systems
that change on a daily basis or we are considering complex, multi-tiered concepts in which
history, science, politics, and ethics are all intertwined. It is also very important that you
communicate what you know clearly and effectively, and so your grade will depend on the form
of your work as well as its content. Heed the following, terribly simple advice:
Do high quality work!
This may seem obvious. But, what does it mean? The best advice I can give you is to
avoid producing work in this or any course that looks like you are just going through the motions
of something without knowing why except that you were told to do it, or hastily getting
something done in time, or complying grudgingly with something that you are being made to do.
Craft your work well. Plan and think before you write. Make your work both complete and
precise: avoid vague generalizations and, whenever appropriate, include relevant details and
show your logic and rationale. Make sure your tone and language are worthy of the occasion:
scholarly and professional. Find a way to get into the spirit of things that is compatible with
your basic nature. There are many ways to shine. Nevertheless, excellent work LOOKS
excellent; mediocre work LOOKS mediocre. Some guidelines:
FORM:
1) Correctness. A basic issue is always the correctness of your work: punctuation,
grammar, spelling. Make sure your handwriting is neat and legible. If I can't read
it, how can I give you credit for it? And remember, spellcheck spellcheck
spellcheck.
2) Accuracy and precision of language. A big problem many students have is the
use of inaccurate and imprecise language. Avoid vague, cryptic and colloquial
language. It reflects both inadequate thought formulation and inadequate facility
with vocabulary. Time and care can fix this problem.
CONTENT: 3) Focus and relevance. Did you stay on one well-defined subject or fly off on
tangents? Did you have a point or did you wander and ramble, as though lost?
4) Verisimilitude. Was you interpretation of the problem or issue reasonable or
did it indicate a probable misunderstanding?
5) Preparation. Did your answer reflect adequate familiarity with the material we
have studied, or did it look like you have not studied very much or paid attention
in class?
If your work is weak in any of those ways, then it is hard to think of it as more than fair
to mediocre in quality, and to give you more than about a C.
The Advent of the Atomic Bomb
COLGATE UNIVERSITY
SOME QUALITIES OF EXCELLENCE: To get an honest and heartfelt B or higher for your
work, it needs in addition to display at least some of the following qualities:
1) A sense of mission. Did you get the point of the exercise? Or did you seem
confused?
2) Deftness. Was the tail wagging the dog, or visa versa? Did you seem as if
you didn't have a clue about what you were doing or why, or did you have things
under control?
3) Insight. Did you see deeply into the issue? Did you have an original thought
about it?
4) Awareness of context and significance. Did you indicate when and how the
problem called for a larger understanding of the material as well as the various
contexts in which it could be usefully viewed?
5) Subtlety. Did you seem to appreciate the depth and complexity of the issue?
Or were your thoughts facile, superficial, poorly formulated, hasty, or
incomplete?
TEST: Grable
DATE: May 25, 1953
Operation: Upshot/Knothole Site: Nevada Test Site Area 5
Detonation: Artillery shell airburst, altitude – 500 feet
Yield: 15kt
Type: Fission
The Advent of the Atomic Bomb
COLGATE UNIVERSITY
The Atomic Picture Show
Tentative List of Films (subject to change)
Week I: All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
"This story is neither an accusation nor a confession and, least of all, an adventure
because death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try
simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped its shells,
were destroyed by the war..."
With these opening lines written across the screen, the Oscar-winning Best
Picture, "All Quiet on the Western Front" began its spiraling road of death, destruction,
futility, and dreams turned into nightmares courtesy of a war that was billed as "the war
to end all wars."
Week II: Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970)
Sir, there's a large formation of planes coming in from the north, 140 miles, 3
degrees east." "Yeah? Don't worry about it." This is just one of the many mishaps
chronicled in Tora! Tora! Tora! The epic film shows the bombing of Pearl Harbor from
both sides in the historic first American-Japanese coproduction: American director
Richard Fleischer oversaw the complicated production (the Japanese sequences were
directed by Toshio Masuda and Kinji Fukasaku, after Akira Kurosawa withdrew from the
film), wrestling a sprawling story with dozens of characters into a manageable, fairly
easy-to-follow film. The first half maps out the collapse of diplomacy between the
nations and the military blunders that left naval and air forces sitting ducks for the
impending attack, while the second half is an amazing re-creation of the devastating
battle. The special effects won an Oscar, but the film was shut out of every other category
by, ironically, the other epic war picture of the year, Patton.
Week III: The Sands of Iwo Jima (1949)
John Wayne catapulted from Hollywood leading man to All-American hero with
his Oscar-nominated performance as Sergeant Stryker, a hard-nosed Marine sergeant who
must mold a company of raw recruits into a combat-ready fighting machine. Feared by
many and hated by all, Stryker’s training is soon put to the test in a full-scale assault
against the Japanese on Iwo Jima—an infamous battle that will live forever in one of
cinema’s most famous scenes, the flag-raising on Mount Suribachi.
Week IV: The Thin Red Line (1998)
Adaptation of James Jones’ huge novel of the campaign to take Guadalcanal.
Director Terrence Malick has bypassed generic war movie obligations to introduce
clearly characters, establish tag traits that make them and their
emotional/spiritual/military-team playing progress easy to track, and also lay out the
tactical objectives clearly, with a big picture view of how this all fits into the war effort.
The principal characters are Charlie Company, and the story is not only how they cope
with the Japanese, and with their own intra-Army tensions. It’s also the awesome,
metaphysically charged spectacle of man doing terrible things to man within the
multicolored and multifarious cathedral of Nature.
Week V. Fat Man and Little Boy (1989)
The Advent of the Atomic Bomb
COLGATE UNIVERSITY
This is an interesting film about the development of the atomic bomb at Los
Alamos labs, personalizing the story by focusing on General Groves (Paul Newman), the
bullheaded Army officer who was handed the job; and the brilliant J. Robert
Oppenheimer (Dwight Schultz), who organized the brain trust that created the bomb.
Week VI: Hiroshima (1995)
Account of the events leading up to the dropping of the atomic bomb, as told from
both sides in two separate, interwoven films--one Canadian (with Kenneth Welsh as
Truman), the other Japanese, with subtitles. Recently uncovered footage, newsreels,
armed forces clips, and dramatized encounters with the leading figures of the time
provide stunning results for this ambitious TV effort. Interestingly, other than a few U. S.
actors, no American hands were involved, despite dealing mainly with Harry Truman, his
closest advisors, and the Manhattan Project. Hiroshima uses a unique structure to convey
the story of that fateful decision, mixing newsreels with new sepia-toned footage, color
dramatizations, and interviews with Hiroshima survivors and U.S. military personnel. At
times, the transitions between the segments can be a bit jarring, but Hiroshima is an
extraordinary look at the human element of the decision to use nuclear weapons. Its
painstaking attention to period detail makes it a historical drama that plays nearly like a
documentary. Kenneth Welsh, in particular, is an uncanny Harry Truman, having
obviously studied the president's clipped Midwestern twang and ramrod-straight bearing
at great length. Unlike many other films on the subject, Hiroshima also shows the
Japanese side of the equation, with a diplomatic corps ready to sue for peace while the
fanatics in the military would never hear of it. Its unswervingly objective, balanced tone,
and sober direction make Hiroshima a thoughtful and informative look at the decision
that changed the course of history forever.
Week VII. Black Rain (1990)
Somber, restrained, and very moving story detailing five years in the life of a
family which survived Hiroshima, and the ways their bodies and souls are poisoned by
the fallout--or ``black rain. '' A quietly observant character study with a number of
haunting black and white images. This is a wonderful black and white film by one of
Japan's foremost directors, Shohei Imamura. "Black Rain" explores a difficult subject,
the bombing of Hiroshima, but does it not by assigning blame for the bombing. Rather
Imamura depicts the intolerance of humanity that leads to all wars and their equally
terrible aftermath. The characters in the film, all very well acted, are dealing with
radiation illness and their positions as new social outcasts in postwar Japan. Perhaps one
of the most moving scenes is that of the three Buddhist prayers or "sutras" for
Hiroshima's dead chanted by a layman in the absence of the clergy. Indeed the film is one
long prayer for peace and tolerance.
Week VIII: Hiroshima Mon Amour (1959)
Alain Resnais's multi-award-winning film is neither an easy film to watch nor to
synopsize, but it remains one of the high-water marks of the French "new wave"
movement. Resnais weaves a complex story concerning a French actress's experiences in
occupied France, juxtaposed with the horrendous ordeal of a Japanese architect who
survives the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. These stories are offered in quick flashback
vignettes, which permeate the contemporary story of the woman's relationship with the
architect in contemporary Hiroshima.
The Advent of the Atomic Bomb
COLGATE UNIVERSITY
Week IX: Grave of the Fireflies (1988)
Isao Takahata's powerful film has been praised by critics wherever it has been
screened around the world. When their mother is killed in the firebombing of Tokyo near
the end of World War II, teenage Seita and his little sister Setsuko are left on their own:
their father is away, serving in the Imperial Navy. The two children initially stay with an
aunt, but she has little affection for them and resents the time and money they require.
The two children set up housekeeping in a cave by a stream, but their meager resources
are quickly exhausted, and Seita is reduced to stealing to feed his sister. Despite his
efforts, she succumbs to malnutrition. Seita painfully makes his way back to the
devastated city where he quietly dies in a crowded railway station. The strength of the
film lies in Takahata's evenhanded portrayal of the characters. A sympathetic doctor, the
greedy aunt, the disinterested cousins all know there is little they can do for Seita and
Setsuko. Their resources, like their country's, are already overtaxed: anything they spare
endangers their own survival. No mention is made of Japan's role in the war as an
aggressor; but the depiction of the needless suffering endured by its victims transcends
national and ideological boundaries.
Week X: Barefoot Gen (1992)
Gen Nakaoka is on his way to school when the bomb detonates. He makes his
way back to his home through hellish scenes of ruined buildings, corpses, and hideously
mutilated survivors. Although his family is still alive, Gen and his pregnant mother are
unable to free his father, sister, and brother from the rubble of their house and must leave
them to burn to death. His mother goes into labor during their flight and his new sister is
born amid the devastation. Holding the infant, Gen tells her to remember the horrors, so
that they never occur again. The film is drawn from writer Keiji Nakazawa's true life
experiences in the aftermath of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima.
Week XI: Dr. Strangelove (1963)
Stanley Kubrick’s brilliant classic is the perfect showcase for the versatility of
Peter Sellers, who takes on three distinctive roles in the film. Funny and frightening, this
black comedy about a group of military men who plan a nuclear apocalypse seems as
relevant today as ever. Fueled by paranoia and a fanatical sense of patriotism, two
psychotic generals—U.S. Air Force Commander Jack D. Ripper and Joint Chief of Staff
“Buck” Turgison—trigger an ingenious, irrevocable scheme to attack Russia’s strategic
targets with nuclear bombs. The brains behind the scheme belong to Dr. Strangelove
(Sellers), a wheelchair-bound nuclear scientist with bizarre ideas about mankind’s future.
Rendered helpless to stop the bombers is the President of the U.S. (Sellers) and Ripper’s
executive officer, Captain Mandrake (Sellers)—the only man who can stop them.
Week XII: War Game (1965)
A chilling documentary that imagines what would result if the Russians ever
launched a nuclear attack on Great Britain. "The War Game" shows the terrifying
physical damage caused by weapons of such magnitude, as well as the enormous disorder
that would break out in the battle's aftermath. Filmmaker Peter Watkins uses newsreel
techniques that make the horrors portrayed here even more realistic.
Week XIII: Atomic Café (1982)
Artfully culled from newsreel footage and government archives of the 1940s and
50s, this film serves up the dark side of Cold War America in all its fear and paranoia,
The Advent of the Atomic Bomb
COLGATE UNIVERSITY
and manages to blend this with a deep black humor. The result is what has been called by
critics “a nuclear REEFER MADNESS” and a “non-fiction DR. STRANGELOVE”.
Highpoints include scenes of soldiers wearing only sunglasses for protection when sent
into areas devastated by nuclear detonation, happy suburban families practicing use of
their bomb shelters and “Burt the Turtle” teaching children to “duck and cover” as
protection from nuclear fall-out. The Atomic Café has proven to be a true classic and a
darkly comic look at a defining period in the 20th century.
ALL MOVIES WILL BE SHOWN IN 217 LATHROP HALL
Week I: All Quiet on the Western Front
Thursday Jan 20
8pm
Week II: Tora! Tora! Tora!
Monday Jan 24
7pm
Week III: The Sands of Iwo Jima
Tuesday Feb 1
9pm
Week IV: The Thin Red Line
Wed Feb 9
7pm
Week V: Fat Man and Little Boy
Thurs Feb 17
8pm
Week VI: Hiroshima
Wed Feb 23
9pm
Week VII: Black Rain
Tues Mar 1
7pm
Week VIII: Hiroshima Mon Amour
Mon Mar 7
8pm
Week IX: Grave of the Fireflies
Thurs Mar 24
9pm
Week X: Barefoot Gen
Wed Mar 30
8pm
Week XI: Dr. Strangelove
Thurs Apr 7
7pm
Week XII: War Game
Mon Apr 11
9pm
Week XIII: Atomic Café
Wed Apr 20
8pm
The Advent of the Atomic Bomb
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
THE DARK SIDE OF BIOLOGY:
BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS, BIOTERRORISM, AND BIOCRIMINALITY
Course Instructor:
Prof. Kathleen Vogel,
154 Uris Hall
email: [email protected]
Tel: 255-2248
Class meeting time: 8:40-9:55 a.m. TR
Classroom location: Goldwin Smith 156
Office Hours:
Tuesday 10 am-12 noon, 154 Uris Hall
Course Description
Since biblical times, biological materials have been used in attacks on human, plant, and
animal populations. Rapid advances in biotechnology, as well as changing social and
political climates, have created new public fears that the malicious release of pathogens
and toxins by states and/or terrorist groups is a clear and present threat. Analysts argue
over what frameworks and methodologies should be used to assess these threats. Other
debates have emerged within the domestic and international scientific and policy
communities as to what biological research and publications should be restricted and
censored to prevent misuse. At the same time, an expansion of biodefense activities since
9/11 has raised new concerns within the public about the misdirection of federal funding
and the safety of new high containment research laboratories. What role do these various
expert and lay communities, as well as larger public and government discourses, play in
shaping threat perceptions and national security policies? This course will examine these
issues and explore the various scientific, social, political, legal, and ethical dimensions
related to biological weapons threats and dual-use biotechnology.
The primary goals for this course are as follows:
• To understand, evaluate, and apply a variety of frameworks for assessing the threat of
biological weapons
• To understand how debates over biological weapons have emerged from and are
shaped by particular social, cultural, and political contexts; and how a variety of
actors are involved in shaping these debates.
• To learn how to interrogate popular notions of the bioterrorism/biological weapons
threat.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
STS/BSOC 471 SYLLABUS
I.
INTRODUCTION
(8/24) First Day of Class:
No reading assignment; introduction to the course
(8/29) Setting the Stage: What is the BW threat?
• Jean Pascal Zanders, John Hart, and Frida Kuhlau, “Letters as a means of
delivering anthrax bacteria,” in SIPRI Yearbook 2002: Armaments, Disarmament,
and International Security (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002): 699-703 (ereserve); also accessible via internet at:
http://www.sipri.org/contents/cbwarfare/Publications/pdfs/cbw-yb2002.pdf.
• Central Intelligence Agency, “Attachment A: Unclassified Report to Congress on
the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction
and Advanced Conventional Munitions,1 July Through 31 December 2003,”
(November 2004): 1-12, (focus attention on discussion of biological threats by
states and terrorists), article accessible via the internet at:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/pdfs/721report_july_dec2003.pdf.
• Central Intelligence Agency, “The Darker Bioweapons Future,” (November 3,
2003): 1-2 (e-reserve); also accessible via internet at:
http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/bw1103.pdf.
• Bill Durodie, “The New Security Fears,” in The Concept of Risk, Nuffield Trust
Paper, Health, Security, and Foreign Policy Programme (November 2005): 18-20
(e-reserve); also accessible at: http://www.durodie.net/pdf/HEALTH.pdf
(8/31) What is a Biological Weapon?
• U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Technical Aspects of
Biological Weapon Proliferation” in Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass
Destruction, OTA-BP-ISC-115 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office, December 1993): 71-117 (course packet), also accessible via internet at:
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/ota/934405.pdf.
(9/5) Introduction to Class Research Project
• No reading assigned
II.
REAL AND IMAGINED THREATS INVOLVING BIOTERRORISM & BIOLOGICAL
WEAPONS
(9/7) Historical Overview: The Use of Biological Agents for War & Terror
• Adrienne Mayor, Greek Fire, Poison Arrows, and Scorpion Bombs: Biological
and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World (Woodstock: Overlook Duckworth,
2003): 41-62 (course packet).
• Edward M. Eitzen, Jr. and Ernest T. Takafuji, “Historical Overview of Biological
Warfare,” in Textbook of Military Medicine: Medical Aspects of Chemical and
Biological Warfare (Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon General, Department
of the Army, 1997): 415-423 (course packet), also accessed via internet at:
http://www.vnh.org/MedAspChemBioWar/chaptersinpdf/Ch-18electrv699.pdf.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
(9/12) The Threat of Bioterrorism---circa 1998
• Richard Preston, The Cobra Event (New York: Random House, 1998).
GROUP: RESEARCH TOPICS DUE IN CLASS ON 9/12
(9/14) Bioterrorism and Advances in Biotechnology: Post Sept 11th debates
• Jeronimo Cello et al., “Chemical synthesis of poliovirus cDNA: Generation of
Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template.” Science, Vol. 297, 9
August 2002, p. 1016-1018 (course packet).
• Steven M. Block, “A Not-so-Cheap Stunt,” Science Vol. 297, 2 August 2002, p.
769-770 (course packet).
• Eckard Wimmer, “The test-tube synthesis of a chemical called poliovirus: The
simple synthesis of a virus has far-reaching societal implications,” EMBO Reports,
Vol. 7 (July 1, 2006): S3-S9 (course packet).
III.
FRAMING THE BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS (BW) THREAT
(9/19) Discussion of Library Resources for Group Project
• Meet in Uris Library Electronic Classroom (lower level) from 8:40-9:55 a.m.
• No reading response due
INDIVIDUAL: ESSAY #1 DUE IN CLASS ON 9/19
(9/21) Science Debates
• Steven M. Block, “Living Nightmares: Biological Threats Enabled by Molecular
Biology,” in The New Terror: Facing the Threat of Biological and Chemical
Weapons (Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, 1999): 39-75 (course packet).
• William E. Fry, “Technical Feasibility of Anti-Crop Terrorism,” in AgroTerrorism: What is the Threat? Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY, 12-13 November 2000, edited by Gavin Cameron and
Jason Pate (Livermore: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 2003): 69-74
(course packet).
• Stephen Hilgartner, Science on Stage: Expert Advice as Public Drama (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 2000): 3-20 (course packet).
(9/26) Political Science Perspectives: Realist and Constructivist Approaches
• Susan Martin, “The Role of Biological Weapons in International Politics: The
Real Military Revolution” The Journal of Strategic Studies Vol. 25, No. 1 (March
2002): 63-98 (course packet).
• Barry Buzan et al., “Security Analysis: Conceptual Apparatus,” in Security: A
New Framework for Analysis (Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 1998): 21-47 (course
reserve).
(9/28) Terrorism Studies: Is the Past Prologue?
• Adam Dolnik, “Die and Let Die: Exploring Links Between Suicide Terrorism
and Terrorist Use of Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Weapons,”
Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, Vol. 26 (2003): 17-35 (course packet).
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
•
•
Todd Sandler and Walter Enders, “September 11 and Its Aftermath,”
International Studies Review, Vol. 7 (2005): 165-168 (course packet).
Michael Stohl, “Is the Past Prologue? Terrorists and WMD,” International Studies
Review, Vol. 7 (2005): 146-148 (course packet).
(10/3) The Anthropology of Risk
• Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection
of Technical and Environmental Dangers (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1982), Chapters: introduction (p.1-15), chapter 1 (p. 16-28), chapter 3 (p.
49-66), Chapter 4 (p. 67-82).
• Cass Sunstein, “Terrorism and Probability Neglect,” Journal of Risk and
Uncertainty, Vol. 26, No. 2/3 (2003): 121-136 (course packet).
GROUP: LITERATURE REVIEW DUE IN CLASS ON 10/3
(10/5) Views from Technology Studies
• Robert Carlson, “The Pace and Proliferation of Biological Technologies,”
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, Vol. 1,
No. 3 (September 2003): 203-214 (course packet).
• Stephen L. Del Sesto, “Wasn’t the Future of Nuclear Energy Wonderful?” in
Imagining Tomorrow: History, Technology, and the American Future, edited by
Joseph J. Corn (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1986): 58-76 (course packet).
(10/10) FALL BREAK: NO CLASS
IV.
ROLE OF SOCIAL ACTORS AND STAKEHOLDERS IN BW DEBATES AND THREAT
ASSESSMENTS
(10/12) Actors as Interest Groups
• Trevor Pinch, “Users as Agents of Technological Change: The Social
Construction of the Automobile in the Rural United States,” Technology and
Culture, Vol. 37, No. 4 (October 1996): 763-795 (course packet).
• Michel Callon, “Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation: Domestication of
the Scallops and the Fishermen of St. Brieuc Bay,” in Mario Biagioli, ed., The
Science Studies Reader (New York: Routledge, 1999): 67-83 (course packet).
(10/17) Pathogens as Actants: Guest Speaker: Professor William Ghiorse
• Readings TBA
(10/19) The Bioterrorists
• W. Seth Carus, “The Rajneeshees” in Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of
Chemical and Biological Weapons, edited by Jonathan B. Tucker (Cambridge:
MIT Press, 2000): 115-137 (course packet).
• Milton Leitenberg; “The Experience of the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo Group and
Biological Agents,” in Hype or Reality: The New Terrorism and Mass Casualty
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
•
Attacks (Alexandria: Chemical and Biological Arms Control Institute, 2000):
159-172 (course packet).
Central Intelligence Agency, “Attachment A: Unclassified Report to Congress on
the Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction
and Advanced Conventional Munitions,1 July Through 31 December 2003,”
(focus on discussion of non-state actors and biological terrorism), accessible at:
https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/721_reports/pdfs/721report_july_dec2003.pdf.
GROUP: QUESTIONNAIRE, LIST OF INTERVIEWEES, & METHODS DUE IN CLASS ON 10/19
(10/24) Biocriminals and Biohackers
• Shellie A Kolavic et al, “An Outbreak of Shigella dysenteriae type 2 among
laboratory workers due to intentional food contamination,” JAMA Vol. 278, No. 5
(6 Aug 1997): 396-398 (course packet).
• W. Seth Carus, “Chapter 5. Use of Biological Agents,” in Bioterrorism and
Biocrimes: The Illicit Use of Biological Agents Since 1900 (Washington, DC:
National Defense University, August 1998, February 2001 Revision): 44-51, 6061, 63-66, 68-72, 74-79 (course packet).
• Rob Carlson, “View: Essay” WIRED Magazine 13.05 (2006) (course packet),
also via internet: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.05/view_pr.html.
INDIVIDUAL: ESSAY #2 DUE IN CLASS ON 10/24
GROUP: MEETINGS WITH PROFESSOR VOGEL DURING WEEK OF 10/24 TO DISCUSS PROJECTS
(10/26) The Military
• Charles Piller and Keith R. Yamamoto, “The U.S. Biological Defense Research
Program in the 1980s: A Critique,” in Preventing a Biological Arms Race
(Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990): 133-168 (course packet).
• Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg, and William J. Broad, “U.S. Germ Warfare
Research Pushes Treaty Limits,” The New York Times (September 4, 2001): A1
(course packet).
• Milton Leitenberg et al., “Biodefense Crossing the Line,” Guest Commentary in
Politics and the Life Sciences Vol. 22, No. 2, (2004): 1-2 (course packet).
(10/31) The Science Advisors and Bioweaponeers
• Brian Balmer, “Killing ‘Without the Distressing Preliminaries’: Scientists’
Defence of the British Biological Warfare Programme,” Minerva Vol. 40 (2002):
57-75 (course packet).
• Judith Miller, Stephen Engelberg, and William Broad, “Warrior,” in Germs:
Biological Weapons and America’s Secret War (Simon and Schuster: New York,
2001): 34-65 (e-reserve).
• Jeanne Guillemin, “Science Advising and Visions of the Apocalypse,” in
Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to
Contemporary Bioterrorism (Columbia University Press: New York, 2005):
160—163 (e-reserve).
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
(11/2) The Public
• Marylia Kelley and Jay Coghlan, “Mixing Bugs and Bombs,” Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists September/October 2003, p. 25-31 (course packet).
• Kelly Field, “Residents Fight Boston U’s Biosafety Laboratory,” The Chronicle of
Higher Education, 25 June 2004, (course packet), also accessible at:
http://chronicle.com/cgi2bin/printable.cgi?article=http://chronicle.com/free/v50/i42/42a02801.htm, p. 1-6.
• U.S. National Academy of Sciences, “The Implementation of the Smallpox
Vaccination Program,” in The Smallpox Vaccination Program: Public Health in
an Age of Terrorism (U.S. National Academies Press: Washington, 2005): 39-64
(e-reserve).
(11/7) The Biological Science Community
• Stephen Mauer, Keith V. Lucas, and Starr Terrell, “From Understanding to
Action: Community Based Options for Improving Safety and Security in
Synthetic Biology, Draft 1.1” (April 15, 2006): 1-25 (course packet), also
available via internet at:
http://gspp.berkeley.edu/iths/UC%20White%20Paper.pdf.
• MIT town hall meeting on synthetic biology, watch webcast available via internet
at: http://syntheticbiology.org/
“Declaration of the Second International Meeting on Synthetic Biology,”
Berkeley, California, (29 May 2006) (course packet), also accessible via internet
at: http://syntheticbiology.org/SB2Declaration.html
(11/9) Case Study #1: Sverdlovsk & Yellow Rain, Guest Speaker, Prof. Thomas Seely
• Thomas D. Seeley et al., “Yellow Rain,” Scientific American Vol. 253, September
1985, p. 128-137 (course reserve).
• Matthew Meselson et al., “The Sverdlovsk Anthrax Outbreak of 1979,” Science
Vol. 266, 18 November 1994, p. 1202-1208 (course packet).
• Leonard A. Cole, “Sverdlovsk, Yellow Rain, and Novel Soviet Bioweapons:
Allegations and Responses,” in Preventing a Biological Arms Race (Cambridge:
MIT Press, 1990), p. 199-219 (course packet).
INDIVIDUAL:
ESSAY #3 DUE IN CLASS ON 11/9
PROBLEMS WITH THREAT ASSESSMENTS IN THE REAL WORLD
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
(11/14) NO CLASS
(11/16) Case Study #1: Iraq: Pre-War Assessments
• National Intelligence Council, Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass
Destruction (October 2002), (course packet).
• U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell Addresses the U.N. Security Council
(February 5, 2003), (course packet); also see webcast accessible via internet at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html
• UNMOVIC, Unresolved Disarmament Issues: Iraq’s Proscribed Weapons
Programmes, (6 March 2003): p. 41-51; 57-65; 95-132 (course packet), also
accessible at internet website:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/new/documents/cluster_document.pdf.
(11/21) Case Study #2: Iraq: Post-War Assessments
• Central Intelligence Agency, Iraqi Mobile Biological Warfare Agent Production
Plants, 28 May 2003, (course packet), also accessible at:
http://www.odci.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/paper_w.pdf.
• Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Report on the U.S. Intelligence
Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (July 9, 2004): 15-35.
• Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding
Weapons of Mass Destruction, Report to the President of the United States,
March 31, 2005, Chapter 1 Case Study: Iraq, Biological Warfare, p. 80-111,
(course packet); also accessible at: http://www.wmd.gov/report/chapter1_fm.pdf.
GROUP: OUTLINE OF FINAL PAPER DUE IN CLASS ON 11/16
V.
Threats, Questions, and Future Policymaking (please be prepared to address
the following issues in your class presentation and final paper)
Biodefense Funding: Is it enough? Too much? Right priorities?
• Erika Jonietz, “Biodefense Boondoggle,” Technology Review 7 June 2004 (course
packet).
• Sidney Altman et al., “An Open Letter to Elias Zerhouni,” Science, Vol. 307 (4
March 2005): 1409-1410 (course packet). [readings continued on next page]
• Thomas May, “Funding Agendas: Has Bioterror Defense Funding Been OverPrioritized?” The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol. 5, No. 4 (2005): 34-44
(course packet).
• Milton Leitenberg, “Bioterrorism, hyped,” Los Angeles Times, February 17, 2006
(e-reserve), also accessible via internet:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-oeleitenberg17feb17,0,3489887.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california.
(11/22-26) THANKSGIVING BREAK: NO CLASS
(11/28) Presentations of Class Projects
(11/30) Presentations of Class Projects
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
***FINAL GROUP PAPERS DUE ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8TH***
General Information
This course will serve as a senior seminar in the BSOC department major. As a result, the
course will emphasize close reading and group discussion of the readings. You are
expected to read actively and critically to comprehend the authors’ arguments. During
the semester, the course will cover some technical aspects related to biological weapons.
As a result, I strongly suggest that students have some prior introductory biology
background (such as BIOMI 290 or similar biology course). However, I do not assume
that students are biology majors and I will go over some of the more detailed technical
readings in class.
Course materials
The majority of readings for the course will be found in the Coursepack available at the
bookstore; additional readings will be found on e-reserve or course reserve in Uris library,
or via the internet (as specified). The following books are required for this course:
• Richard Preston, The Cobra Event;
• Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky, Risk and Culture: An Essay on the
Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers.
Grades
Grades will be based on the following:
• Class participation (20%)
• Reading responses (20%)
• Essays (30%)
• Group Project (20%)
• Group Presentation (10%)
Class participation
Each student is expected to come to class prepared to discuss the ideas in the readings
and your reactions to them. Regular attendance and participation are expected, and more
than two unexcused absences will result in a lower grade.
In addition, half of your participation grade will be based on each student leading one of
the class discussions, starting on 9/7. A sign up sheet will be provided at the start of the
semester. Students are welcome to meet with Professor Vogel during her office hours to
talk about discussion strategies.
Reading Responses
Each student will prepare a 1-page discussion document for each class period’s readings,
starting on 8/29. This paper is not a summary, but a personal reflection on the week’s
readings and the points the student believes are worth discussing. The purpose of the
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
notes is to help focus discussion for each class. Some examples of responses could
include a brief discussion of: (1) an issue or problem raised by that reading that you find
interesting or that you will criticize; (2) a connection to previous assigned readings; (3)
an outside reading that relates to the assigned reading; (4) a related news article; (5)
questions or points of clarification. Be prepared to read your notes aloud in class since
they will serve as part of class discussion. Notes will be due at the end of class on the
days they are assigned. Notes will be given partial credit if they are late, poorly done,
and/or submitted by a third party. These reading notes will be graded check (B), check
plus (A), or check minus (C). During the course of the semester, you may skip two of
these notes without penalty.
Essays
You will be responsible for submitting a short essay (~3-4 typed, double-spaced pages)
on the due dates listed below (and in syllabus). One week before each essay is due I will
announce the topic. The papers must be submitted in class on the day they are due. Late
essays will be penalized by half a letter grade, each day after the due date.
• Essay #1: 9/19
• Essay #2: 10/24
• Essay #3: 11/9
Group project
The class will be divided into groups of ~3-4 students each, who will work together
throughout the course of the semester on a group project involving original research and
the writing of a final report. The group project will involve a technical and social science
assessment of the bioweapons threat. Additional details on the group project will be
announced on September 5th and updated at various points throughout the semester. For
the project, each group will be expected to submit various project materials (research
topic, literature review, questionnaire & methods, outline, final report) and meet with
Professor Vogel on specific dates as indicted in the syllabus.
The final report for the group project should be prepared as if submitted to the journal,
Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science. The journal
guidelines will be posted on e-reserve. The final report should include a discussion of the
methods, literature review, results of the data collection, and discussion/conclusion. In
the discussion/conclusion, the report should explicitly address: (1) what is the
bioweapons threat of the topic from a technical and social science perspective; for the
latter each report should incorporate at least one of the assigned social science readings
from the course; (2) policy recommendations for U.S. government officials. The Final
Report should be 3000-5000 words, typed and double spaced in length; appendices
should be included as relevant.
Each individual in the group will receive a grade for this portion of the course based on
the group submission of the project materials throughout the semester and the final report.
Each submission of project materials should meet the deadlines as outlined in the
syllabus; the final report is due in class on Thursday, November 30th. Late papers will be
marked down one-half grade per day.
Group Presentation
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Each group will also give a 15-20 min in-class presentation of their group project. The
presentation will be graded on organization of the talk, clarity of findings, argument
clearly presented, and creative flair. The group presentation should not just be a
summary of the findings and final report, but should also include creative presentation.
There is no final exam for this course.
Statement on Academic Integrity
The Cornell Code of Academic Integrity states: “Absolute integrity is expected of every
Cornell student in all academic undertakings. Integrity entails a firm adherence to a set of
values, and the values most essential to an academic community are grounded on the
concept of honesty with respect to the intellectual efforts of oneself and others. . . .A
Cornell student's submission of work for academic credit indicates that the work is the
student's own. All outside assistance should be acknowledged, and the student's academic
position truthfully reported at all times. In addition, Cornell students have a right to
expect academic integrity from each of their peers.”
Each student in this course is expected to abide by the Cornell University Code of
Academic Integrity. In the context of this course, academic integrity includes writing
your own reading notes & responses, essays, and term paper, faithfully referencing all
sources, and using quotation marks to indicate material that is quoted. Violations will be
handled in accordance with the strictest applicable university policies. See the complete
statement of student responsibilities: http://plagiarism.arts.cornell.edu/tutorial/index.cfm
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Physics 2206/Government 3847
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Spring 2009
Tuesday/Thursday: 2:55-4:10pm
Uris Hall Auditorium (Uris G01)
Instructors:
George Lewis (Physics)
130C Uris Hall
[email protected]
607.255.8914
Sarah Kreps (Government)
317 White Hall
[email protected]
Teaching Assistants
Bryan Daniels (Physics)
Clark 535
[email protected]
607.255.7128
Simon Cotton (Government)
[email protected]
607.279.5482
Office Hours:
Wednesday 2.00-4.00
Office Hours:
Thursday 4.15-5.15
Friday 2.30-3.30
Office Hours:
Mondays 2.00-3-45
Office Hours:
Tuesdays, 4.15-6.00
Course Description
The 20th and early 21st centuries have been profoundly affected by the development of
extremely destructive, technology-based weapons, often (and sometimes wrongly)
lumped together under the term "weapons of mass destruction." This course will
examine topics such as the physics, technology and effects of nuclear weapons. In
addition, the course will explore the nuclear arms race, efforts to restrain it via arms
control, important concepts and strategies, and recent and current issues associated with
nuclear proliferation. Similarly, the technology of, effects of, past and future potential
uses of, and prospects for preventing future use of biological, chemical, and radiological
weapons will be covered. Finally, the delivery systems that enable the use of many of the
above weapons will also be covered, ranging from the massive missile arsenals of the
Cold War to current issues such as the deployment and effectiveness of missile defenses.
This course is offered jointly as Physics 2206 and Government 3847. Lectures and
reading assignments are common (mostly) to both courses, but exams and sections have
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
different emphases. Students enrolled in Physics 2206 will do problem sets relating to
the technical material discussed in the course. Students enrolled in Government 3847
will examine policy issues and write an analytic research paper of 8-10 pages, due on
April 16. All students will take a mid-term and final exam but the content will be
different for the physics and government students. Grades will be based on section work
(problem sets/paper/participation) (25%), mid-term exam (25%), and cumulative final
exam (50%).
Course Materials
The following texts are available at the bookstore or online:
Jeremy Bernstein, Nuclear Weapons: What You Need to Know (Cambridge University
Press, 2007)
Joseph Cirincione, Jon B. Wolfsthal, and Miriam Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals: Nuclear,
Biological, and Chemical Threats, 2nd ed. (Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment,
2005).
Dietrich Schroeer, Science, Technology, and the Nuclear Arms Race (New York: John
Wiley and Sons, 1984)
John Lewis Gaddis, Strategies of Containment (New York: Oxford University Press,
2005).
Unless otherwise stated, readings will be posted on Blackboard.
News and Links
In addition to the readings, you should sign up for Google’s daily news alerts. At
http://www.google.com/alerts?hl=en, type “nuclear” as the search term, and “once a day”
as the frequency. This will allow you to keep up with nuclear-related news on a daily
basis.
Also, the following links may be useful as additional reference material or for
commentaries on WMD-related activities.
International Atomic Energy Agency news site
http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/index.html
Arms Control Association, http://www.armscontrol.org/
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/
Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy, http://www.acronym.org.uk/
Federation of American Scientists, www.fas.org
Natural Resources Defense Council, http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nuguide/guinx.asp
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Center for Policy Studies http://www.pircenter.org/index.php?id=1174
Arms Control Wonk, http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/
Assigned Readings
Week 1: January 20: Introduction
Introduction (Kreps, Lewis); A 20 kt Nuclear Explosion over Cornell (Lewis)
January 22: Atomic and Nuclear Physics (Lewis)
Schroeer, pp. 14-33.
Bernstein, to page 89.
Optional for Physics students (But recommended – you will likely find it helpful for the
first homework):
John D. Cutnell and Kenneth W. Johnson, “Nuclear Physics and Radioactivity,” Chapter
38, in Physics (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1989)
January 27: The decision to build the bomb (Kreps)
James Phinney Baxter, Scientists against Time, 419-450.
Hans Bethe, “How Close is the Danger,” and “Brighter than a Thousand Suns,” The Road
from Los Alamos (blackboard)
Stanley Goldberg. 1992. “Inventing a climate of opinion: Vannevar Bush and the
decision to build the bomb,” Osiris. 83:429-452
Schroeer, pp. 34-36.
For more background, browse the following:
http://www.cfo.doe.gov/me70/manhattan/events.htm
January 29: The Possibility of Nuclear Explosions (Lewis)
Bernstein, pp. 93-188
February 3: The Decision to Use the Bomb (Kreps)
Henry Stimson.1947. The decision to use the atomic bomb. In Kai Bird and Lawrence
Lifschultz, eds. Hiroshima’s Shadow: Writings on the denial of history and the
Smithsonian controversy. Stoney Creek Ct: The Pamphleteers Press. Pp. 197-210.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Gar, Alperovitz. 2001. Historians reassess: Did we need to drop the bomb. pp. 5-21 in
Bird and Lifschultz.
Louis Morton, “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb,” part of an article available at
http://www.history.army.mil/books/70-7_23.htm
Decision-making simulation (in class)
February 5: The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (Lewis)
Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense and U.S. Department, 1977), pp. 26-48 and (physics
students only) pp. 105-117.
Lynne Eden, Whole World on Fire: Organizations, Knowledge, & Nuclear Weapons
Devastation (Cornell University Press, 2004), Chapter 1 “Complete Ruin.”
Office of Technology Assessment, The Effects of Nuclear War, Chapter 2, “A Nuclear
Weapon Over Detroit or Leningrad: A Tutorial on the Effects of Nuclear Weapons,” pp.
13-46.
Schroeer, pp. 36-56.
February 10: The Decision to Build the Hydrogen Bomb (Kreps) and the Nuclear
Physics (Lewis)
Richard Rhodes, “Changing History,” Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb
(blackboard)
Bird, American Prometheus, pp. 419-430, 435-453.
Gaddis, “Implementing Containment,” 71, 79-82
Schroeer, pp. 58-81
Howard Morland, “The H-Bomb Secret,” The Progressive, November 1979, pp. 14-23.
Optional:
Bernstein, pp. 191-223.
The Development of the Hydrogen Bomb” in Jeffrey Porro, ed. (with Paul Doty, Carl
Kaysen, and Jack Ruina), The Nuclear Age Reader (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989),
pp. 62-72.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
February 12: Proliferation in the Early Cold War (Kreps)
Graham Spinardi, “Aldermaston and British Nuclear Weapons Development: Testing the
‘Zuckerman Thesis,’” Social Studies of Science, vol. 27, no. 4 (August 1997): 547-82.
Binyamin Pinkus, “Atomic Power to Israel’s Rescue: French-Israeli Nuclear
Cooperation, 1949-57,” Israel Studies, Vol. 7, no. 1 (2002): 104-138.
Henry Sokolski, “The Baruch Plan,” Best of Intentions
Roger L. Geiger, “Science, Universities, and National Defense 1945-1970,” Osiris, Vol. 7
(1992), 26-48.
February 17: Delivery Systems, Accuracy, and Targeting (Lewis)
Schroeer, Chapters 5(“Strategic Bombers), Chapter 6 (“Intercontinental Ballistic
Missiles”) and Chapter 7 (“Nuclear Missile Submarines”)
Natural Resources Defense Council, “Nuclear Notebook: The U.S. Nuclear Stockpile,
Today and Tomorrow,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September/October 2007, pp.
60-63. Available at:
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/3605g0m20h18877w/fulltext.pdf
Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, “Nuclear Notebook: U.S. Nuclear Forces,
2008,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, March/April, 2008, pp. 62-69. Available at:
http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/pr53n270241156n6/fulltext.pdf
Optional:
Office of Technology Assessment, Chapter 5 “The Proliferation of Delivery Systems,” in
Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, November 1993).
Waheguru Pal Singh Sidhu, “Looking Back: The Missile Technology Control Regime,”
Arms Control Today, April 2007. Available at:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_04/LOOKINGBACK
February 19: Nuclear Strategies of the Cold War (Kreps)
Gaddis, Strategies of Containment, Chapters 2, 5, 7, 9
Schelling, Arms and Influence, Chapter 2
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Optional:
Gaddis, Chapter 4
February 24: The Arms Race (Kreps)
David Alan Rosenberg, “The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American
Strategy, 1945-1960,” International Security, 7 (Spring 1983), 3-71.
John Lewis Gaddis, “The Cuban Missile Crisis,” We Now Know, 260-280.
Albert Wohlstetter, Paul H. Nitze, Joseph Alsop, Morton H. Halperin, Jeremy J. Stone,
“Is there a Strategic Arms Race? (II): Rivals but No ‘Race’” Foreign Policy, No 16
(Autumn 1974), 48-92.
Optional Reading:
“The Intelligence Community Experiment in Competitive Analysis: Soviet Strategic
Objectives: An Alternative View.”
Albert Wohlstetter, “The Delicate Balance of Terror,” available at
http://www.rand.org/about/history/wohlstetter/P1472/P1472.html, section V (THE USES
AND RISKS OF BASES CLOSE TO THE SOVIETS)
February 26: Defenses (Lewis)
John E. Pike, Bruce G. Blair, and Stephen I. Schwartz, “Defending Against the Bomb,”
in Stephen I. Schwartz, ed., Atomic Audit (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press,
1998), pp. 284-298.
Richard Garwin and Hans Bethe, “Anti-ballistic missile systems,” Scientific American,
March 1968.
U.S. Missile Defense Agency, “Fact Sheet: The Ballistic Missile Defense System,”
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/pdf/bmds.pdf
Technical Realities: An Analysis of the 2004 Deployment of a US National Missile
Defense System, Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004. Read the summary that is at this
link:
http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/missile_defense/technical_
issues/technical-realities-national.html
The full report is also available at the above link, and the “Executive Summary” and
Chapter 3 “The Planned NMD System” are optional
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
The White House. 2002. "National Policy on Ballistic Missile Defense." NSPD-23, 16
December. Available from the Federation of American Scientists web site at
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-23.htm
March 3: Theories of Arms Control (Kreps)
Bernard Brodie, “On the Objectives of Arms Control,” International Security, Vol. 1, No.
1 (Summer 1976), pp. 17-36.
Robert Jervis, “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics, Vol. 30, No.2
(Jan 1978), 167-214.
Joseph S. Nye Jr, “Arms Control and International Politics,” Daedalus, Vol. 120, No. 2
(1991), 145-165.
March 5: End of Détente and Arms Race II:
Strategic Defense Initiative and Weapons in Space (Lewis)
“Executive Summary,” Anti-Satellite Weapons, Countermeasures and Arms Control,
U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1985), pp. 3-24.
Chapter 2 (“Background”) and Chapter 3 (“Space Weapons Kinds and Capabilities”) in
Bob Preston, Dana J. Johnson, Sean J.A. Edwards, Michael Miller, and Calvin
Shipbaugh, Space Weapons: Earth Wars (Santa Monica, CA.: RAND, 2002). Available
at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1209/
March 10: The Practice of Arms Control (Kreps)
Richard Smoke, “Strategy and Arms Control in the Early 1980s,” National Security and
the Nuclear Dilemma.
Thomas Schelling, “What Went Wrong with Arms Control,” Foreign Affairs, 1985.
Paul Doty, “Strategic Arms Limitation after SALT I,” Daedalus, Vol. 104, No. 3
(Summer 1975), 63-74.
John W.R. Lepingwell, “Start II and the Politics of Arms Control in Russia,”
International Security, Vol. 20, No.2 (Autumn 1995), 63-91.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Sources on Arms Control:
Arms Control Association, “U.S.-Russian/Soviet Nuclear Arms Control Agreements at a
Glance,” Factsheet, June 2007. Available at:
http://www.armscontrol.org/print/2556
US-Soviet/Russian Nuclear Arms Agreements: http://www.armscontrol.org/print/2556
Limited Test Ban Treaty: http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/LTBT.asp?print
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, entered into force on 5 March
1970, reprinted as IAEA INFCIRC/140, 20 April 1970.
“Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space, and Under
Water,” entered into force on 10 October 1963
Salt I text, http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/salt1/text/salt1.htm
March 12:
Midterm
March 17, 19:
Spring Break
March 24: Why Do States Proliferate and is More Proliferation Better? (Kreps)
Scott Sagan, “Why do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a
Bomb,” International Security, Vol. 21, no. 3 (Winter 1996-97): 54-86.
Sagan, Scott, "The Perils of Proliferation in South Asia." Asian Survey,
November/December, 2001.
Kenneth Waltz, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better,” Adelphi Papers,
Number 171 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1981), available at
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/waltz1.htm
George Perkovich, “Nuclear Proliferation,” Foreign Policy, no. 112 (Autumn 1998): 1223.
March 26: Efforts to Prevent the Spread of Nuclear Weapons (Kreps)
Non-Military
Goldblat, Jozef. 1997. "Nuclear Weapon Free Zones: A History and Assessment." The
Nonproliferation Review 5 (spring/summer):18–32. Download available at
cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/goldbl43.pdf
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Nuclear Safeguards and the International Atomic Energy Agency, U.S. Office of
Technology Assessment. 1995OTA-ISS-615 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office).
Military Counterproliferation:
Dan Reiter, “Preventive War and its Alternatives: The Lessons of History, (Carlisle, PA:
Strategic Studies Institute, 2006), available at
www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub651.pdf.
William Burr and Jeffrey T. Richelson, “Whether to ‘Strangle the Baby in the Cradle’:
The United States and the Chinese Nuclear Program, 1960-64,” International Security,
Vol. 25, No3 (Winter 2000-2001), 54-99.
Optional Reading:
IAEA, The "Statute of the IAEA." Available at
http://www.iaea.or.at/About/statute_text.html. Accessed 16 September 2004.
IAEA, "The Structure and Content of Agreements Between the Agency and States
Required in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons."
INFCIRC/153 (corrected), June, 1972. Available at
http://www.iaea.or.at/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/Others/inf153.shtml.
IAEA, "Model Protocol Additional to the Agreement(s) Between State(s) and the
International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards." INFCIRC540,
September, 1997.
March 31: Nuclear Control after the Cold War (Lewis)
Matthew Bunn, “Securing Nuclear Stockpiles Worldwide,” in George P. Shultz, Sidney
D. Drell, and James E. Goodby, Reykjavic Revisited: Steps Towards a World Free of
Nuclear Weapons (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press, 2008). Available at:
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Reykjavik%20Revisited-CH7.pdf
Read up to page 246. The rest is optional
Robert Nelson, “Nuclear Bunker Busters, mini-Nukes, and the US Nuclear Stockpile,”
Physics Today, November 2003. Available at: www.physicstoday.orbg/vol-56/iss11/p32.html
Jeffrey Lewis, “After the Reliable Replacement Warhead: What’s Next for the U.S.
Nuclear Arsenal?” Arms Control Today, December 2008. Available at:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_12/Lewis
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
Daryl G. Kimball, “Jump-STARTing U.S.-Russian Disarmament,” Arms Control Today,
November 2008. Available at:
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_11/focus
Optional:
Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, “What’s Behind Bush’s Nuclear Cuts,” Arms
Control Today, Oct 2004, pp.6-12, www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_10/NRDC.asp
Jonathan Medalia, “Nuclear Weapons: The Reliable Replacement Warhead Program,”
Congressional Research Service, July 20, 2005, www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL32929.pdf
April 2: Nuclear Taboos and Can We Undo Nuclear Development? (Kreps)
Nina Tannenbaum, “Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo,”
International Security, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Spring 2005): 5-49.
Scott D. Sagan and Jeremi Suri, “The Madman Nuclear Alert: Secrecy, Signaling, and
Safety in October 1969,” International Security, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Spring 2003): 150-83.
Richard Haass, “It’s dangerous to disarm,” New York Times, 11 December 1996.
Kathleen Bailey, “Why Do we Have to Keep the Bomb?” Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, Jan/Feb 1995, www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=jf95bailey
Optional:
Donald MacKenzie and Graham Spinardi, “Tacit Knowledge, Weapons Design, and the
Uninvention of Nuclear Weapons,” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 101 (1995): 4499.
April 7, 9: Chemical and Radiological Weapons
The Physical Science of Chemical and Radiological Weapons (Lewis)
Cirincione, Chapter 4, “Biological and Chemical Weapons, Agents, and Proliferation,”
including tables at end
Jonathan Medalia, “Terrorist “Dirty Bombs”: A Brief Primer,” Report for Congress,
Congressional Research Service, April 1, 2004. Available at:
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/crs/RS21528.pdf
Michael A. Levi and Henry C. Levi, “Weapons of Mass Disruption,” Scientific
American, November 2002, pp. 76-81. Available at:
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nonproliferation_and_arms_control/wmdisruption.pdf
Optional:
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, “Technical Aspects of Biological
Weapon Proliferation” in Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction, OTABP-ISC-115 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, December 1993): 71117, also accessible via internet at: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/ota/934405.pdf
The History and Social Science (Kreps)
“Instances and Allegations of CBW, 1914-1970, Chemical Warfare, 1914-1918: World
War 1,” in Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, The Problem of Chemical
and Biological Warfare, Volume 1: The Rise of CB Weapons (Stockholm: Almqvist &
Wiksell, 1971), pp. 125-141.
Richard Betts, “The New Threat of Mass Destruction,” Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb 2008.
Amy Smithson, “Recharging the Chemical Weapons Convention,” Arms Control Today,
March 2004, p.6, available at
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2004_03/Smithson.asp?print
Richard Price, “A Genealogy of the Chemical Weapons Taboo,” International
Organization, 1 (1995): 73-103.
“Chemical and Biological Weapons Nonproliferation Regime,” Cirincione, 35-37
April 14, 16: Biological Weapons
The Physical Science of Biological Weapons (Lewis)
Graham S. Pearson, “The Essentials of Biological Threat Assessment,” in Biological
Warfare: Offense and Defense, ed. Raymond A. Zilinskas, Boulder: Lynne Rienner,
1999: 55-57; 61-71 [14 of 300 pages], ISBN: 1555877613.
The Social Science of Biological Weapons (Kreps)
Wenger and Wollenmann, Bioterrorism: A Complex Threat, Chapters 1 and 9
Carol Atkinson, "Who Cares About Biological Warfare?" Working paper
Milton Leitenberg, “Evolution of Non state Actor/Terrorist Biological Weapons
Capabilities,” in Assessing the Biological Weapons and Bioterrorism Threat, Carlisle:
Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, December 1, 2005, p. 21-42 [21 of
123 pages], ISBN: 1584872217, available at:
http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB639.pdf.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
April 21: Contemporary Nuclear Postures (Lewis)
Post-ABM, Nuclear Posture Review
Nuclear Posture Review, leaked excerpts,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm
Read the Foreword, the rest is optional, but recommended.
Charles L Glaser and Steve Fetter, “Counterforce Revisited: Assessing the Nuclear
Posture Review's New Missions,” International Security, Vol.30, No. 2 (Fall 2005), pp.
84-126.
Wade Boese. 2003. "Missile Defense Post-ABM Treaty: No System, No Arms Race."
Arms Control Today 33, 5 (June), available at
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_06/mdanalysis_june03
Sections on “Deploying a Test Bed” and “New Tests: Same Uncertainties” are optional
Optional:
Sokolsky, Richard. 2002. "Demystifying the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review." Survival,
Vol. 44, No. 3 (Autumn 2002), pp.133–48
April 23: Enduring Nuclear Issues: Asia (Kreps)
David Albright and Corey Hinderstein, “Unraveling the AQ Khan and Future
Proliferation Networks,” The Washington Quarterly, Spring 2005, available at
www.twq.com/05spring/doc/05spring_albright.pdf
Michael Levi and Charles Ferguson, US-India Nuclear Cooperation, available at
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=3OzJ3UiFNIC&oi=fnd&pg=PP6&dq=support+india+nuclear+deal&ots=ZmuDsgfnMp&sig=c1h7D7
0lLSosTsV2EjnKzYWHnp4#PPA24,M1
Daryl Kimball and Fred McGoldrick, “US-Indian Nuclear Agreement: A Bad Deal Gets
Worse,” available at http://www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/2007/20070803_IndiaUS
US-India Nuclear Agreement
frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h5682enr.txt.pdf
Optional:
“Pakistan,” Deadly Arsenals, 239-258.
“India,” Deadly Arsenals, 221-238.
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
“North Korea” in Deadly Arsenals, pp.279-294
Alex S. Paul Kapur, “India and Pakistan’s Unstable Peace: Why Nuclear South Asia is
Not Like Cold War Europe,” International Security, Fall 2005.
Montgomery, “Ringing in Proliferation: How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb Network,”
International Security, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Fall 2005), 153-187.
April 28: Enduring Nuclear Issues: The Middle East (Lewis)
Marvin Miller and Lawrence Scheinman, "Israel, India, and Pakistan: Engaging the NonNPT States in the Nonproliferation Regime." Arms Control Today, December, 2003, pp.
15–20. Available at: http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_12/MillerandScheinman
“Iran” chapter of Deadly Arsenals, pp.295-314.
Paul K. Kerr, “Iran’s Nuclear Program: Status,” Report for Congress, Congressional
Research Service, November 20, 2008. Available at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL34544.pdf
Optional:
“Libya,” Deadly Arsenals, pp.317-328.
“Israel,” Deadly Arsenals, pp. 259-275.
April 30: Nuclear Policy in the 21st Century (Lewis and Kreps)
John Mueller. “The Essential Irrelevance of Nuclear Weapons: Stability in the Postwar
World,” International Security Vol. 13, No. 2 (Fall 1988), pp. 55-79.
Robert Jervis. “The Political Effects of Nuclear Weapons: A Comment,” International
Security Vol. 13, No. 2 (Fall 1988), pp. 80-90.
Thomas Schelling, “An Astonishing 60 Years: The Legacy of Hiroshima,” Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol 103, No. 16 (April 18 2006), 6089-6093.
Jeremiah D. Sullivan, “The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty,” Physics Today, March
1998, www.aip.org/pt/vol-51/iss-3/vol51no3p24-29part1.pdf
www.aip.org/pt/vol-51/iss-3/vol51no3p24-29part2.pdf
Bruce Blair, Harold Feiveson, and Frank von Hippel, “Taking Nuclear Weapons off HairTrigger Alert,” Scientific American, November 1997.
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
History 94.2
Science, Technology and Culture in the Nuclear Age
Dartmouth College
Winter 2005
Richard Kremer
405 Carson Hall
Wednesdays 12-3
Goals of the Course
An examination of the social, political and cultural dimensions of nuclear technology
from the discovery of fission in 1938 through the 1980s. We will consider how national
contexts shaped the development of nuclear weapons and power reactors, and how these
technologies in turn affected politics, culture and science. Topics include efforts in
Germany, the USSR, Japan, the USA and Britain to build fission weapons during World
War II; representations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in American and Japanese memory;
the arms race, atomic scientists and the Cold War; the nuclear power industry in
international comparison; living in and resisting the Nuclear Age; literary and film
representations of the Nuclear Age; and the impact of the Nuclear Age on the
development of science and technology since 1938.
Course Requirements
Two short essays, 4-5 pages each (20%): Write a critical review of one of the films
scheduled for the course, and write a critical review of one of the imaginative literary
works scheduled for the course (Frayn, Hoban, Oe, Vanderbilt, or Wells). Each essay is
due at the class session in which the work will be discussed.
Term essay (35%): Write a 12 to 15-page original research paper on any issue, for which
adequate primary sources are accessible, related to the course. I will provide a list of
suggested topics, which might include, for example, Hollywood and the bomb,
reevaluations of Heisenberg and the German nuclear project, American and Soviet
concepts of civil defense in the 1950s, the “matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer,” Japanese
atomic-bomb poetry, the physics of “Star Wars” missile defense systems, etc. Your onepage preliminary bibliography and topic description is due in class on Tuesday, 25
January. Term essays are due on Thursday, 10 March, by 5 pm. I will offer suggestions
on any preliminary drafts received by Tuesday, 1 March.
Class Participation (10%): Read assigned materials and view films critically, and
participate actively in class discussions and symposia.
Final examination (35%): The exam will consist primarily of essay questions, selected
from a somewhat longer list of questions you will see in advance.
Course Policies
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
2
History 94.2
Winter 2005
According to College policy (ORC, p. 104), there are no regularly excused absences for
participation in College-sponsored extracurricular activities. Please see me immediately
if you anticipate such conflicts to arise during the term. You are also expected to submit
written work on time.
For this seminar, the Academic Honor Principle (ORC, pp. 67-70) means that you should
write your own essays, with proper citations to sources used, and should not submit the
same work in more than one course. Read Dartmouth‟s Sources: Their use and
acknowledgment (www.dartmouth.edu/~sources) for a definition and discussion of
plagiarism. I encourage you, however, to discuss the readings, films and your research
with other class members.
Any student with a documented disability needing academic adjustments or
accommodations is requested to speak to me and give me a copy of your accommodations
form by the end of the second week of the term. All discussions will remain confidential,
although the Director of Student Disabilities may be consulted if questions arise.
Required Textbooks
(available in Wheelock Books)
Canady, John. The Nuclear Muse: Literature, Physics and the First Atomic Bombs.
University of Wisconsin Press, 2000.
Cantelon, Philip L., et al., eds. The American atom: A documentary history. Univeristy
of Pennsylvania Press, 1992.
Frayn, Michael. Copenhagen. Random House, 2000.
Hoban, Russell. Riddley Walker. Indiana University Press, 1998.
Itty, Abraham. The Making of the Indian Atomic Bomb: Science, Secrecy and the
Postcolonial State. Zed Books, Ltd, 1998.
Oe, Kenzaburo. Hiroshima notes. Grove Press, 1996.
Rhodes, Richard S. The making of the atomic bomb. Simon & Schuster, 1995.
Vanderbilt, Tom. Survival city: Adventures among the ruins of atomic America.
Princeton Architectural Press, 2002.
Walker, J. Samuel. Three Mile Island: A nuclear crisis in historical perspective. Univ of
California Press, 2004.
Wells, H. G. The World Set Free. Quiet Vision Publishing, 2000.
CHECK
Michael Gordin, Five days in august: How WWII became a nuclear war (Princeton,
2007); idem, Red cloud at dawn: Stalin, Truman, and the end of the atomic
monopoly (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2009)
Additional materials will be placed on 4-hour closed reserve in Baker Library.
CHECK http://digital.library.unlv.edu/ntsohp/ (6.09)
Films
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
Winter 2005
History 94.2
(on reserve in Jones Media Center)
Cameron, James, director. “The Terminator” [Hemdale, 1984]. MGM Home
Entertainment, 2001. DVD, 107 mins.
Else, John, director. "Day after Trinity" [Pyramid Films, 1981]. Image Entertainment,
2002. DVD, 88 mins.
Hogan, Pamela, director. “Ultimate weapon.” Superbomb Documentary, Inc., for the
History Chanel, 2000. VHS, 45 mins.
Imamura, Shohei, director. “Black Rain.” [Japanese original, Kuroi ame, 1989].
Angelica Films, 1998. DVD, 123 mins.
Kaufman, Brian, director. “Citizen Kurchatov.” Oregon Public Broadcasting, 1999.
VHS, 56 mins.
Kramer, Stanley, director. “On the beach” [United Artists, 1959]. MGM Home
Entertainment, 2000. DVD, 134 mins.
Kubrick, Stanley, director. “Dr. Strangelove or how I learned to stop worrying and love
the bomb” [Columbia Pictures, 1964]. Columbia Tristar Home Video, 1999.
DVD, 98 mins.
Kurosawa, Akira, director. “Rhapsody in August” [“Hachigastu no rapusodi,” 1991].
MGM/UA Home Video, 1998. VHS, 100 mins.
Taurog, Norman, director. "The Beginning or the End," MGM, 1947. 112 mins. Rental,
not available at Jones.
3
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
4
History 94.2
Syllabus and Assigned Reading
Winter 2005
All *ed are on four-hour closed reserve in Baker Library
Jan 4
Introduction
Who owns history, I? The 1995 Enola Gay Exhibit and American
memories of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
“The Enola Gay Controversy” (reader, distributed in class)
Background
Bird, Kai, and Lawrence Lifschultz, eds. Hiroshima's shadow. Stony
Creek, CT: Pamphleteer's Press, 1998.
Horgan, Michael J., ed. Hiroshima in history and memory. Cambridge,
1996.
Harwit, Martin. An exhibit denied: Lobbying the history of the Enola Gay.
New York, 1996.
Linenthal, Edward T. and Tom Engelhardt. History wars: The Enola Gay
and other battles for the American past. New York, 1996.
Kohn, Richard H. “History and the culture wars: The case of the
Smithsonian's Enola Gay exhibition.” Journal of Amerian history 82
(1995): 1036-63.
Nobile, Philip, ed. Judgment at the Smithsonian. New York, 1996 (initial
version of the exhibition text, released in January 1994).
Jan 6
Who owns history, II? Japanese memories of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki
Imamura, Shohei, director. “Black Rain.” [Japanese original, Kuroi ame,
1989]. Angelica Films, 1998. DVD, 123 mins.
Oe, 1996.
Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum. Browse http://www. pcf.city.
hiroshima.jp /top_e.html.
Background
Akizuki, Tatsuichiro. Nagasaki 1945: The first full-length eyewitness
account of the atomic bomb attack on Nagasaki [1967]. Transl. Keiichi
Nagata. London, 1981.
Broderick, Mick. Hibakusha cinema: Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the
nuclear image in Japanese film. New York: Kegan Paul International,
1996.
Bungei Shunju Senshi Kenkyukai. The day man lost: Hiroshima, 6 August
1945. Tokyo, 1972.
Dower, John W. and John Junkerman, eds. The Hiroshima murals: The
art of Iri Maruki and Toshi Maruki. Tokyo, 1985.
Dower, John. “The bombed: Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japanese
memory.” Diplomatic history 19 (1995): 275-95.
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
Winter 2005
History 94.2
5
Goodman, David, ed. After apocalypse: Four Japanese plays of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.
Hayashi Kyoko. “The site of rituals [1975].” In Nuke-rebuke: Writers &
artists against nuclear energy & weapons, pp. 21-57. Ed. Morty Sklar.
Iowa City, 1984.
Hersey, John. Hiroshima [1946]. New ed. New York, 1985.
Japanese Broadcasting Corporation (NHK), ed. Unforgettable fire:
Pictures drawn by atomic bomb survivors. New York, 1981.
Minear, Richard L. Hiroshima: Three witnesses. Princeton, 1990.
Nagai, Takashi. The bells of Nagasaki [1949]. Transl. William Johnston.
Tokyo, 1984.
Nagai, Takashi. We of Nagasaki: The story of survivors in an atomic
wasteland. Transl. Ichiro Shirato and H. Silverman. New York, 1951.
Selden, Kyoko and Mark Selden, eds. The atomic bomb: Voices from
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Armonk, N.Y., 1989.
Treat, John Whittier. Writing ground zero: Japanese literature and the
atomic bomb. Chicago, 1995.
Trumbull, Robert. Nine who survived Hiroshima and Nagasaki; personal
experiences of nine men who lived through the atomic bombings. New
York, 1957.
Vance-Watkins, Lequita and Aratani Mariko, eds. White flash, black rain:
Women of Japan relive the bomb. Minneapolis, 1995.
Jan 11
Science, power and war before 1939: Visions and realities
Wells, H. G., 2000.
Rhodes, 1986, Chapts. 1-4.
Background
Haynes, Roslynn D. From Faust to Strangelove: Representations of the
scientist in Western literature. Baltimore, 1994.
Jacob, Margaret C. and Stewart, Larry. Practical matter: Newton’s
science in the service of industry and empire, 1687-1851. Cambridge,
2004.
MacLeod, Roy, ed. Nature and empire: Science and the colonial
enterprise. Osiris 15, 2000.
Russell, Edmund. War and nature: Fighting humans and insects with
chemicals from World War I to Silent spring. Cambridge, 2001.
Smith, Merritt Roe, ed. Military enterprise and technological change:
Perspectives on the American experience. Cambridge, 1985.
Jan 13
From moonshine to neutrons to chain reactions: Nuclear physics in
the making
Cantelon, ed., 1992, pp. 3-9.
Rhodes, Chapts, 7-11.
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
6
History 94.2
Winter 2005
Else, John, director. "Day after Trinity" [Pyramid Films, 1981]. Image
Entertainment, 2002. DVD, 88 mins.
Digital resources: Locate a major web site devoted to nuclear issues and
present a critical review of its content. This list of sites may provide
useful sources for your research papers.
Background
Brown, Andrew. The neutron and the bomb: A biography of Sir James
Chadwick. Oxford, 1997.
Cassidy, David C. J. Robert Oppenheimer and the American century.
New York, 2004.
Fischer, Klaus. Changing landscapes of nuclear physics: A scientometric
study on the social and cognitive position of German-speaking
emigrants within the nuclear physics community, 1921-47. Berlin,
1993.
Hahn, Otto. My life: The autobiography of a scientist. New York, 1970.
Heilbron, J. L. The dilemmas of an upright man: Max Planck as
spokesman for German science. Berkeley, 1986.
Hoffmann, Klaus. Otto Hahn: Achievement and responsibility. New
York, 2001.
Sime, Ruth Lewin. Lise Meitner: A life in physics. Berkeley, 1996.
Weart, Spencer R. and Szilard, Gertrud, eds. Leo Szilard: His version of
the facts. Cambridge, 1978.
Jan 18
Organizing and nationalizing science for World War II: Contrasting
Europe, the USA, and Japan
Rhodes, Ch. 11-13.
Background
Bartholomew, James R. The formation of science in Japan: Building a
research tradition. New Haven, 1989.
Cathcart, Brian. Test of greatness: Britain's struggle for the atom bomb.
London, 1994.
Dupree, A. Hunter. Science in the Federal Government: A history of
policies and activities. Baltimore, 1986.
Gowing, Margaret. Britain and atomic energy, 1939-1945. New York,
1964.
Holloway, David. Stalin and the bomb: The Soviet Union and atomic
energy, 1939-1956. New Haven, 1994.
Jan 20
Hollywood’s initial version of the Manhatten Project
Taurog, Norman, director. "The Beginning or the End," MGM, 1947. 112
mins. This film, which we must rent, can be screened only once, during
the regularly scheduled class session.
Rhodes, Ch. 14-17.
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
Winter 2005
Jan 25
History 94.2
7
Soldiers out of uniform: Building the American bomb
Cantelon, ed., pp. 9-37, 50-61.
Rhodes, Ch. 18.
Background
Albright, Joseph, and Marcia Kunstel. Bombshell: The secret history of
America's unknown atomic spy conspiracy. New York: Times
Books/Random House, 1997.
Fermi, Rachel, and Esther Samra. Picturing the bomb: Photographs from
the secret world of the Manhatten Project. New York, 1994.
Hacker, Barton C. The dragon’s tail: Radiation safety in the Manhattan
Project, 1942-1946. Berkeley, 1988.
Hewlett, Richard G., and Oscar E. Anderson, Jr. The new world: A history
of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, 1939-1946 [1962].
Berkeley, 1990.
Hoddeson, Lillian, et al. Critical assembly: A technical history of Los
Alamos during the Oppenheimer years, 1943-1945. New York, 1993.
Norris, Robert S. Racing for the bomb: General Leslie R. Groves, the
Manhattan Project’s indispensable man. 2002.
Dozens of autobiographical accounts by participants in the Manhattan
Project have been published, especially around 1995. In addition to
such accounts, see:
Howes, Ruth. Their day in the sun: Women of the Manhattan Project.
Philadelphia, 1999.
Mason, Katrina R. Children of Los Alamos: An oral history of the town
where the Atomic Age began. New York, 1995.
Research paper proposals due
Jan 27
Why didn't the Germans build a successful bomb?
Interpretations, justifications and historiography
Frayn, 2000.
Kaufman, Brian, director. “Citizen Kurchatov.” Oregon Public
Broadcasting, 1999. VHS, 56 mins.
Background
Bernstein, Jeremy. Hitler's uranium club: The secret recordings at Farm
Hall. Woodbury, NY: AIP Press, 1996.
Cassidy, David. Uncertainty: The life and science of Werner Heisenberg.
New York, 1991.
Irving, David. The German atomic bomb. New York, 1967.
Powers, Thomas. Heisenberg's war: The secret history of the German
bomb. New York: Knopf, 1993.
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
8
History 94.2
Winter 2005
Rose, Paul Lawrence. Heisenberg and the Nazi atomic bomb project: A
study in German culture. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1998.
Stange, Thomas. “Die kernphysikalischen Ambitionen des
Reichspostministers Ohnesorge.” Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte
21 (1998), 159-74.
Walker, Mark. German National Socialism and the quest for nuclear
power. Cambridge, 1989.
Weiss, Burghard. Forschungsstelle D: Der Schweizer Ingenieur Walter
Dällenbach (1892-1990), die AEG und die Entwicklung
kernphysikalischer Grossgeräte im nationalsozialistischen
Deutschland. Berlin, 1996.
Feb 1
The American decision to use the bomb
Why didn’t the Soviets or the Japanese build a bomb before 1945?
Cantelon, ed., 37-49, 64-67.
Rhodes, Ch. 19.
*Stimson, Henry L. “The decision to use the atomic bomb.” Harper's
magazine 194 (February 1947): 97-107.
Bernstein, Barton. “Understanding the atomic bomb and the Japanese
surrender.” Diplomatic history 19 (1995): 227-73. Available at
Academic Search Premier (Dartmouth College Library).
Background
Alperovitz, Gar. The decision to use the atomic bomb and the architecture
of an American myth. New York, 1995.
Bernstein, Barton. “Reconsidering Truman‟s claim of „half a million
American lives‟ saved by the atomic bomb: The construction and
deconstruction of a myth.” Journal of strategic studies 22 (1999), 5495.
Bernstein, Barton. “Seizing the contested terrain or early nuclear history:
Stimson, Conant and the allies explain the decision to use the atomic
bomb.” Diplomatic history 17 (1993): 35-72.
Harris, Sheldon H. Factories of death: Japanese biological warfare, 193245, and the American cover-up. London, 2002.
Hershberg, James G. James B. Conant: Harvard to Hiroshima and the
making of the nuclear age. New York: Knopf, 1993.
Holloway, David. Stalin and the bomb: The Soviet Union and atomic
energy, 1939-1956. New Haven, 1994.
Maddox, Robert James. Weapons for victory: The Hiroshima decision fifty
years later. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 1995.
Miles, Rufus, Jr. “Hiroshima: The strange myth of half a million American
lives saved.” International security 10 (1985): 121-41.
Walker, J. Samuel. Prompt and utter destruction: Truman and the use of
atomic bombs against Japan. Chapel Hill, 1997.
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
Winter 2005
History 94.2
Walker, Samuel J. “The decision to use the bomb: A historiographical
update.” Diplomatic history 14 (Winter 1990): 94-114.
9
Feb 3
European and American public reactions to Hiroshima/Nagasaki
The failure of internationalism, or the origins of the nuclear arms race
Cantelon, ed., pp. 69-96.
Rhodes, Epilogue.
Find at least one article from a newspaper or periodical published in
August through December of 1945 concerning the Manhattan Project
and/or the use of the atomic bombs. Be prepared to discuss the tone of
the article and the topics covered.
Hogan, Pamela, director. “Ultimate weapon.” Superbomb Documentary,
Inc., for the History Chanel, 2000. VHS, 45 mins.
Background
Boyer, Paul. By the bomb’s early light: American thought and culture at
the dawn on the Atomic Age. New York, 1985.
Herken, Gregg. The winning weapon: The atomic bomb in the Cold War,
1945-1950. New York, 1981.
Manzione, Joseph. “‟Amusing and amazing and practical and military‟:
The legacy of scientific internationalism in American foreign policy,
1945-1963.” Diplomatic history 24 (2000), 21-55.
Sherwin, Martin J. A world destroyed: Hiroshima and its legacies. 3d ed.
Stanford, 2003.
Smith, Alice Kimball. A peril and a hope: The scientists’ movement in
America, 1945-47. Cambridge, 1965.
Feb 8
Building atomic and “super” (hydrogen) bombs in the USA and the
USSR, 1945-55: Spies, Oppenheimer and new “personae” for
physicists
Cantelon, ed., 109-62.
*Galison, Peter, and Barton Bernstein. “In any light: Scientists and the
decision to build the superbomb, 1952-1954.” Historical studies in the
physical and biological sciences 19 (1989): 267-347.
Background
Bernstein, Barton J. “In the matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer.” Historical
studies in the physical sciences 12 (1982), 195-252.
Cassidy, David C. J. Robert Oppenheimer and the American century.
New York, 2004.
Herken, Gregg. Brotherhood of the bomb: The tangled lives and loyalties
of Robert Oppenheimer, Ernest Lawrence, and Edward Teller. New
York, 2002.
Holloway, David. Stalin and the bomb: The Soviet Union and atomic
energy, 1939-1956. New Haven, 1994.
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
10
History 94.2
Winter 2005
Kojevnikov, Alexei. Stalin’s great science: The times and adventures of
Soviet physicists. London, 2004.
Polenberg, Richard, ed. In the matter of J. Robert Oppenheimer: The
security clearance hearing. Ithaca, 2002.
Rhodes, Richard. Dark sun: The making of the hydrogen bomb. New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.
Riehl, Nikolaus. Stalin's captive: Nikolaus Riehl and the Soviet race for
the bomb. Washington, D.C., 1996.
Schweber, S. S. In the shadow of the bomb: Bethe,Oppenheimer and the
moral responsibility of the scientist. Princeton, 2000.
Wang, Jessica. American science in an age of anxiety: Scientists,
anticommunists, and the Cold War. Chapel Hill, NC, 1999.
Feb 10
The US debate on nuclear fallout: Expert interests versus political
interests
Intellectuals in the early Nuclear Age
Canady, 2000.
Kramer, Stanley, director. “On the beach” [United Artists, 1959]. MGM
Home Entertainment, 2000. DVD, 134 mins.
Background
Beatty, John. “Genetics in the atomic age: The Atomic Bomb Casualty
Commission, 1947-1956.” In The expansion of American biology, pp.
284-324. Ed. Keith R. Benson, et al. New Brunswick, 1991.
Chernus, Ira and Linenthal, Edward T., eds. A shuddering dawn: Religious
studies and the nuclear age. Albany, 1989.
Fox, Michael Allen and Groarke, Leo, eds. Nuclear war: Philosophical
perspectives. New York, 1985.
Hacker, Barton C. Elements of controversy: The Atomic Energy
Commission and radiation safety in nuclear weapons testing, 19471974. Berkeley, 1994.
Hashmi, Sohail H. and Lee, Steven P., eds. Ethics and weapons of mass
destruction. Cambridge, 2004.
Lindee, M. Susan. Suffering made real: American science and the
survivors at Hiroshima. Chicago, 1994.
Rose, Kenneth D. One nation underground: The fallout shelter in
American culture. New York, 2001.
Feb 15
The “peaceful atom” and postwar technologies and cultures of
nuclear power
Cantelon, ed., pp. 96-108, 308-38.
Walker, 2004.
Background
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
Winter 2005
History 94.2
11
Balogh, Brian. Chain reaction: Expert debate and public participation in
American commercial nuclear policy, 1945-1975. Cambridge, 1991.
Campbell, John L. Collapse of an industry: Nuclear power and the
contradictions of U.S. policy. Ithaca, 1988.
Carson, Cathryn. “Nucleaer energy development in postwar West
Germany.” History and technology 18 (2002), 233-70.
Chernus, Ira. Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace. College Station, TX, 2002.
Ford, Daniel F. The cult of the atom: The secret papers of the Atomic
Energy Commission. New York, 1982.
Hecht, Gabrielle. The radiance of France: Nuclear power and national
identity after World War II. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999.
Henriksen, Margot A. Dr. Strangelove’s America: Society and culture in
the Atomic Age. Berkeley, 1997.
Hevly, Bruce and Findlay, John M., eds. The atomic West. Seattle, 1998.
Hewlett, Richard G. Atoms for peace and war, 1953-61: Eisenhower and
the Atomic Energy Commission. Berkeley, 1989.
Josephson, Paul R. Red atom: Russia’s nuclear power program from
Stalin to today. New York, 2000.
Reichert, Mike. Kernenergiewirtschaft in der DDR:
Entwicklungsbedinungen, konzeptioneller Anspruch und
Realisierungsgrad, 1955-1990. St. Katharinen, 1999.
Scheibach, Michael. Atomic narratives and American youth: Coming of
age with the atom, 1945-1955. Jefferson, NC, 2003.
Sylves, Richard Terry. The nuclear oracles: A political history of the
General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission, 19471977. Ames, IA, 1987.
Walker, J. Samuel. “Nuclear power and the environment: The AEC and
thermal pollution, 1965-71.” Technology and culture 89 (1989), 96492.
Weart, Spencer R. Nuclear fear: A history of images. Cambridge, 1988.
Willis, Kirk. “The origins of British nuclear culture, 1895-1939.” Journal
of British studies 34 (1995), 59-89.
Feb 17
The promise of controlled nuclear fusion: Physics, Politics, and
Propaganda (Prof. David Montgomery, Dept. of Physics)
Anti-nuclear movements in Europe and the USA
Cantelon, ed., pp. 338-56.
Kubrick, Stanley, director. “Dr. Strangelove or how I learned to stop
worrying and love the bomb” [Columbia Pictures, 1964]. Columbia
Tristar Home Video, 1999. DVD, 98 mins.
Background
Bauer, Martin, ed. Resistance to new technology. Cambridge, 1995.
Berger, Thomas. Cultures of antimilitarism: National security in
Germany and Japan. Baltimore, 1998.
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
12
History 94.2
Winter 2005
Braams, Cornelius M. Nuclear fusion: Half a century of magnetic
confinement fusion research. Philadelphia, 2002.
Bromberg, Joan Lisa. Fusion: Science, politics and the invention of a new
energy source. Cambridge, 1982.
Casamayou, Maureen Hogan. Bureaucracy in crisis: Three Mile Island,
the shuttle Challenger, and risk assessment. Boulder, 1993.
Fowler, T. Kenneth. The fusion quest. Baltimore, 1997.
Friedman, Sharon M. “Chernobyl Coverage: How the U.S. Media Treated
the Nuclear Industry.” Public Understanding of Science 1 (1992), 30523 [look through entire issue, which deals with Chernobyl].
Herman, Robin. Fusion: The search for endless energy. Cambridge, 1990.
Joppke, Christian. Mobilizing against nuclear energy: A comparison of
Germany and the United States. Berkeley, 1993.
Katz, Milton S. Ban the bomb: A history of SANE, the Committee for a
Sane Nuclear Policy, 1957-1985. New York, 1986.
Kemeny, John G. “Saving American democracy: The lessons of Three
Mile Island” [1980]. Baker Spec. Coll., Alumni K314sav.
Marples, David R. The social impact of the Chernobyl disaster.
Basingstoke, 1988.
Medvedev, Zhores A. The legacy of Chernobyl. New York, 1990.
Nelkin, Dorothy and Pollak, Michael. The atom besieged:
Extraparliamentary dissent in France and Germany. Cambridge, 1981.
Pharabod, J. P. Les jeux de l'atome et du hasard: Les grands acidents
nucleaires de Windscale a Chernobyl. De tels accidents peuvent-ils
survenir en France? Paris, 1988.
Trépanier, Michel. L’aventure de la fusion nucléaire: La politique de la
Big Science au Canada. Montreal, 1995.
Wellock, Thomas Raymond. Critical masses: Opposition to nuclear
power in California, 1958-78. Madison, 1998.
Willis, Kirk. “‟God and the atom‟: British churchmen and the challenge of
nuclear power, 1945-1950.” Albion 29 (1997), 422-57.
Wittner, Lawrence S. The struggle against the bomb. 2 vols. Stanford,
1993-97.
Feb 22
No class meeting. Furious work on research papers.
Feb 24
Four decades of nuclear arms races, strategies and controls: The place
of science and technology in the “defense” game
Cantelon, ed., 163-301.
Cohn, Carol. “Sex and death in the rational world of defense intellectuals.”
Signs 12 (1987), 687-718. Available in JSTOR (Dartmouth College
Library).
Cameron, James, director. “The Terminator” [Hemdale, 1984]. MGM
Home Entertainment, 2001. DVD, 107 mins.
Background
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
Winter 2005
History 94.2
13
“War and Peace in the Nuclear Age.” WGBH Boston, 1998. 13-part video
series.
Badash, Lawrence. Scientists and the development of nuclear weapons:
From fission to the limited test ban treaty, 1939-1963. New Jersey,
1995.
Craig, Paul P. Nuclear arms race: Technology and society. New York,
1986.
Easlea, Brian. Fathering the unthinkable : masculinity, scientists, and the
nuclear arms race. London, 1983.
Powaski, Ronald E. March to Armageddon: The United States and the
nuclear arms race, 1939 to the present. New York, 1987.
George, Alice L. Awaiting Armageddon: How Americans faced the Cuban
Missile Crisis. Chapel Hill, 2003.
Feb 28
Nuclear weapons “proliferation”: Israel, India, Pakistan, South
Africa, China, and more?
Abraham, 1998.
Background
Cohen, Avner. Israel and the bomb. New York, 1998.
Cortright, David, and Amitabh Mattoo, eds. India and the bomb: Public
opinion and nuclear options. Notre Dame, 1996.
Goldstein, Avery. Deterrence and security in the 21st century: China,
Britain, France and the enduring legacy of the nuclear revolution.
Stanford, 2000.
Lewis, John Wilson, and Xue Litai. China builds the bomb. Stanford,
1988.
Matinuddin, Kamal. The nuclearization of South Asia. Karachi, 2002.
Perkovich, George. India's nuclear bomb: The impact on global
proliferation. Berkeley, 1999.
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations. North Korea:
Status report on nuclear program, humanitarian issues, and economic
reforms. Washington, D.C., 2004.
Walters, Ronald W. South Africa and the bomb: Responsibility and
deterrence. Lexington, MA, 1987.
Mar 3
Literary musings on the Nuclear Age
Hoban, 1998.
Kurosawa, Akira, director. “Rhapsody in August” [“Hachigastu no
rapusodi,” 1991]. MGM/UA Home Video, 1998. VHS, 100 mins.
Background
Architects, designers, and planners for social responsibility. Quonset huts
on the River Styx: The bombshelter design book. Berkeley, 1987.
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE
14
History 94.2
Winter 2005
Brians, Paul. Nuclear holocausts: Atomic war in fiction, 1895-1984. Kent,
OH, 1987.
Broderick, Mick. Hibakusha cinema: Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the
nuclear image in Japanese film. New York, 1996.
Carpenter, Charles A. Dramatists and the bomb: American and British
playwrights confront the nuclear age, 1945-1964. Westport, CT, 1999.
Dowling, David. Fictions of nuclear disaster. Iowa City, 1987.
Gery, John. Nuclear annihilation and contemporary American poetry:
Ways of nothingness. Gainesville, 1996.
Krug, Gary James. Flickering lights on the eve of destruction: Technology
and being in the nuclear war film.” Ph.D. dissertation. University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1989.
Oakes, Guy. The imaginary war: Civil defense and American cold war
culture. New York, 1994.
Robin, Ron. The making of the Cold War enemy: Culture and politics in
the military-industrial complex. Princeton, 2001.
Shapiro, Jerome F. Atomic bomb cinema: The apocalyptic imagination on
film. New York, 2001.
Stone, Albert E. Literary aftershocks: American writers, readers and the
bomb. New York, 1994.
Treat, John Whittier. Writing ground zero: Japanese literature and the
atomic bomb. Chicago, 1995.
Mar 8
Living in the Nuclear Age after the end of the Cold War
Vanderbilt, 2002.
Natural Resources Defence Council. Nuclear Notebook 2005. Available
at http://www.thebulletin.org/nuclear_weapons_data/index.htm#Global.
Surveys current global status of nuclear weapons.
Background
Gusterson, Hugh. Nuclear rites: A weapons laboratory at the end of the
Cold War. Berkeley, 1996.
Lebow, Richard Ned. We all lost the Cold War. Princeton, 1994.
Mar 10
Research papers due, 5 p.m.
Mar 13
Final Examination, 3 – 6 p.m.
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Political Science 190-668
Spring 2010
Mon 1-3
Professor Daniel Deudney
356 Mergenthalar Hall
phone (215) 880-78461
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
Office Hours Wed. 2-4
NUCLEAR WEAPONS & WORLD ORDER
DESCRIPTION: Over the six plus decades of their existence, nuclear weapons have been of
paramount concern for international politics and international theory. Vast disagreements exist
about many aspects of this topic. This course examines what is perhaps the most basic question,
what political arrangements are consistent with security from nuclear weapons? Debate about
this question falls into roughly two parts, the First Debate during the years of the Cold War, and
the Second Debate beginning roughly twenty years ago and encompassing the problem of nonstate actors. The first part of the course is an intensive examination of the major school of
thought during the first great debate, culminating in the role of nuclear weapons at the end of the
Cold War. This debate was centered on the implications of nuclear weapons for interstate and
great power relations, and came to be overwhelmingly dominated by deterrence and the
measures necessary to achieve it. The second part is an intensive examination of the major
issues and positions of the much newer and less settled second great debate. The scope of issues
at play in the second debate is much more extensive, encompassing non-state actors as well as
states, and the internal features of states, as well as their relations. The third part of the course
examines in depth four select topics which have not been accorded sufficient attention by
theorists.
REQUIREMENTS: 1. Reading Assignments and Class Participation
2. Three (3) ten (10) page papers evaluating the debate on a topic.
First Paper Due: Monday, March 8
Second Paper Due: Monday, April 12
Third Paper Due: Wednesday, May 12
TEXTS:
The following books will be used extensively and should be acquired:
Campbell Craig, Glimmer of a New Leviathan (Columbia, 2003)
Robert Jervis, The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution (Cornell, 1989)
Jonathan Schell, The Abolition, (Knopf, 1984)
Lawrence S. Wittner, Confronting the Bomb (Stanford, 2009)
Paul Lettow, Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Random House, 2005)
Etel Solingen, Nuclear Logics: Contrasting East Asia and the Middle East (Princeton, 2007).
Falkenrath, Newman and Thayer, America=s Achilles Heel: NBC Terrororism (MIT, 1998)
Fred Ikle, Annihilation from Within: the Ultimate Threat to Nations (Columbia, 2006).
Graham Allison, ed. Confronting the Specter of Nuclear Terrorism. Annals of the American
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Academy of Political and Social Science, vol.607, September 2006,
Geoffrey Herrera, Technology and International Transformation (SUNY, 2006).
Dahl, Controlling Nuclear Weapons, Democracy Versus Guardianship (Syracuse, 1985)
Dunoff, and Trachtman, eds., Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law, and
Global Governance (Cambridge, 2009).
1. INTRODUCTION
PART I: THE FIRST GREAT DEBATE
2. NUCLEAR ONE WORLDISM & EARLY DETERRENCE
Campbell Craig, Glimmer of a New Leviathan: Total War in the Realism of Neibuhr,
Morgebnthau, and Waltz (Columbia University Press, 2003) [173 pgs]
John Herz, “The Rise and Demise of the Territorial State,” World Politics, 1957, pp.473-493
[20 pgs] RESERVE
Daniel Deudney, “Anticipations of World Nuclear Government,” ch.9, Bounding Power
(Princeton, 2007), pp.244-264 [20 pgs] RESERVE
Daniel Deudney, “Regrounding Realism: Anarchy, Security, and Changing Material Contexts,”
Security Studies, vol.10, no.1, autumn 2000, pp.1-45. [45 pgs] RESERVE
Bernard Brodie, “War in the Atomic Age,” and “Implications for Military Strategy,” in Brodie
ed., The Absolute Weapon: Atomic Power and World Order (New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co.,
1946). BACKGROUND
Campbell Craig and Sergey Radchenko, The Atomic Bomb and the Origins of the Cold War
(Yale University Press, 2008) BACKGROUND
John Mueller, Atomic Obsession: Nuclear Alarmism from Hiroshima to Al Qaeda (Oxford
University Press, 2009) BACKGROUND
3. WAR STRATEGISM & LATER DETERRENCE
Colin Gray, The Geopolitics of the Nuclear Era: Heartlands, Rimlands, and the Technological
Revolution (New York: Crane, Russak, 1977) [76 pgs] RESERVE
Colin Gray and Keith Payne, “Victory Is Possible,” Foreign Policy, 1980, pp.14-27 [13 pgs]
RESERVE
Robert Jervis, The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of
Armageddon (Cornell University Press, 1989) [257 pgs]
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Kenneth Waltz, “Nuclear Myths and Political Realities,” American Political Science Review,
vol.84, no.3, September 1990, pp.731-44. [13 pgs] RESERVE
Colin Gray, “Nuclear Strategy: The Case for a Theory of Victory,” International Security, vol.4,
no.1 summer 1979, pp.54-87. BACKGROUND
Marc Trachtenberg, “Strategic Thought in America, 1952-1966,” Political Science Quarterly,
vol.104, no.2, summer 1989 BACKGROUND
Patrick Morgan, Deterrence Now (Cambridge University Press, 2003) BACKGROUND
4. ARMS CONTROL, DISARMAMENT & ABOLITION
Richard L. Russell, “The Nuclear Peace Fallacy: How Deterrence Can Fail,” Journal of Strategic
Studies, vol.26, no.1, (March 2003), pp.136-155. [19 pgs] RESERVE
Thomas Schelling, “Reciprocal Measures for Arms Stabilization,” in Donald Brennan ed., Arms
Control, Disarmament, and National Security (New York: Braziller, 1961), pp.167-186 [9 pgs]
RESERVE
Jonathan Schell, The Abolition (Knopf, 1984) [163 pgs]
Jonathan Schell, “The Folly of Arms Control,” Foreign Affairs, vol. 79, no.5, Sept/Oct. 2000, pp.
22-46 [24 pgs] RESERVE
Colin Gray, ch. 1 “The Magic Kingdom of Arms Control,” ch.2 “Weapons and War,” and ch.7
“To Bury Arms Control, Not to Praise It,” House of Cards: Why Arms Control Must Fail
(Cornell University Press, 1992), pp.1-24, 55-69, 179-214 [79 pgs] RESERVE
Harold Feiveson, et al, Part I “Staged Reductions and De-Alerting of Nuclear Forces,” The
Nuclear Turning Point: A Blueprint for Deep Cuts and De-Altering of Nuclear Weapons
(Brookings, 1999), pp.3-30 [27 pgs] RESERVE
Steve Weber, “Realism, Detente, and Nuclear Weapons,” International Organization, vol.44,
no.1, winter 1990. BACKGROUND
Scott Sagan, The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents and Nuclear Weapons (Princeton
University Press, 1993). BACKGROUND
George Perkovitch and James M. Acton, Abolishing Nuclear Weapons, Adelphi Paper 396,
(International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2008), pp.118. BACKGROUND
5. NUCLEAR POPULISM
Lawrence S. Wittner, Confronting the Bomb: A Short History of the World Disarmament
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Movement (Stanford University Press, 2009) [225 pgs]
Richard Price and Nina Tannenwald, “Norms and Deterrence: The Nuclear and Chemical
Weapons Taboo,” in Peter Katzensatein, ed., The Culture of National Security: Norms and
Identity in World Politics (Columbia University Press, 1996), pp.114-152 [38 pgs] RESERVE
David Corwright, Peace: A History of Movements and Ideas (Cambridge University Press, 2008)
[248 pgs BACKGROUND
6. NUCLEAR WEAPONS & THE END OF THE COLD WAR
Paul Lettow, Ronald Reagan and His Quest to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (Random House, 2005)
[248 pgs].
Stephen Shenfield, The Nuclear Predicament: Explorations in Soviet Ideology (London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1987). [105 pgs] RESERVE
Daniel Deudney and G.John Ikenberry “The International Sources of Soviet Change,”
International Security, vol.16, no.3, winter 1991/2, pp.74-118. [44 pgs] RESERVE
John Gaddis, “The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System,”
International Security, vol.10, spring 1986, pp.99-142. BACKGROUND
PART II: THE SECOND GREAT DEBATE
7. PROLIFERATION & COUNTER-PROLIFERATION
Richard K. Betts, AParanoids, Pygmies, Pariahs and Nonproliferation,@ Foreign Policy, no.26,
1977, pp.157-183. [26 pgs] RESERVE
Etel Solingen, Nuclear Logics: Contrasting Paths in East Asia and the Middle East
(Princeton University Press, 2007). [299 pgs]
Kier A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, “The Rise of US Primacy,” Forerign Affairs, March/April
2006, vol.85, no.2 [10 pgs] RESERVE
Derek D. Smith “Deterrence and Counterproliferation in an Age of Weapons of Mass
Destruction,” Security Studies, vol.12, no.4, summer 2003, pp. 152-197. [45 pgs] RESERVE
Derek D. Smith, Deterring America: Rogue States and the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction (Cambridge University Press, 2006). BACKGROUND
Scott D. Sagan, “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb”
International Security, vol.21, no.3, winter 1996/7. BACKGROUND
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: A Debate, (New York:
Norton, 1995). BACKGROUND
Kier A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, “The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of U.S.
Primacy,” International Security, vol.30, no.4, spring 2006, pp.7-44 BACKGROUND
George Quester, Nuclear First Strike: Consequences of a Broken Taboo (Johns Hopkins
University Press, 2006) BACKGROUND
8. TERRORISM & NON-STATE ACTORS (I)
Richard A. Falkenrath, Robert D. Newman and Bradley Thayer, America=s Achilles Heel:
Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Terrororism and Covert Attack (Cambridge: MIT Press,
1998)
[340 pgs]
9. TERRORISM & NON-STATE ACTORS (II)
Todd Masse, Nuclear Terrorism: Conventionalists, Skeptics, and the Margin of Safety (Johns
Hopkins University, Applied Physics Laboratory, 2009) [61 pgs] DISTRIBUTED
Richard Betts, “The Soft Underbelly of American Primacy: Tactical Advantages of Terror,”
Political Science Quarterly, 2002 pp.19-36 [17 pgs] RESERVE
Fred Charles Ikle, Annihilation from Within: the Ultimate Threat to Nations (New York:
Columbia University Press, 2006), pp.107 [107 pgs]
Graham Allison, ed. Confronting the Specter of Nuclear Terrorism. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, vol.607, September 2006, pp. 10-166 [156 pgs]
PART III: PROBLEMS & TOPICS
10. TECHNOLOGICAL DETERMINISM, CONTRADICTION & LAGS
Bruce Bimber, “Three Faces of Technological Determinism,” in Merrtt Roe Smith and Leo
Marx, eds., Does Technology Drive History? The Dilemma of Technological Determinism (MIT
Press, 1994), pp.79-100 [21 pgs] RESERVE
Geoffrey L. Herrera, Technology and International Transformation: The Railroad, the Atom
Bomb, and the Politics of Technological Change (SUNY, 2006) [206 pgs]
Daniel Deudney, “Geopolitics and Change,” in Michael Doyle and G.John Ikenberry eds., New
Thinking In International Theory (Westview, 1997), pp.91-123. [32 pgs] RESERVE
Kier A. Lieber, War and the Engineers: The Primacy of Politics over Technology (Cornell
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
University Press, 2005). BACKGROUND
Chalmers Johnson, Revolutionary Change, second edition (Stanford University Press, 1982).
BACKGROUND
11. LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL STATES
Russell W. Ayres, APolicing Plutonium: The Civil Liberties Fallout,@ Harvard Civil Rights-Civil
Liberties Law Review, vol.10, 1975, pp.369-443. [74 pgs] RESERVE
H. Bartholomew Cox, “Raison d=Etat and World Survival: Who Constitutionally Makes Nuclear
War?” The George Washington Law Review, vol.57, no.6, August 1989, pp.1614-1635. [19 pgs]
RESERVE
Matthew Randall. “Nuclear Weapons and Intergenerational Exploitation,” Security Studies,
vol.16, no.4, Oct-Dec.2007, pp.525-554. [29 pgs] RESERVE
Daniel Deudney, “Political Fission: State Structure, Civil Society and Nuclear Security Politics
in the United States,” in Ronnie Lipschutz ed., On Security (Columbia University Press, 1995),
pp.87-123. [26 pgs] RESERVE
Daniel Deudney, “Omniviolence, Arms control, and Limited Government,” In Stephen Macedo
and Jeffrey Tulis, eds., The Limits of Constitutionalism (Princeton University Pres, 2010), [25
pgs] DISTRIBUTEED
Robert Dahl, Controlling Nuclear Weapons, Democracy Versus Guardianship (Syracuse
University Press, 1985), pp.1-90 [90 pgs] RESERVE (or PURCHASE)
John Dewey, The Public and Its Problems (1927) [10 pgs] EXCERPTS
Ian Shapiro, The State of Democratic Theory (Princeton, 2003) BACKGROUND
Aaron Friedberg, “Why Didn=t the United States Become a Garrison State?” International
Security, vol.16, no.4, spring 1992, pp.109-142. BACKGROUND
Garry Wills, Bomb Power: The Modern Presidency and the National Security State (Penguin,
2010). BACKGROUND
12. THE PLANETARY COMMONS: MILITARIZATION & DE-MILITARIZATION
The Atmosphere, Oceans, Orbital Space and Electromagnetic Spectrum
Barry Posen, “Command of the Commons: The Military Foundations of U.S. Hegemony,”
International Security, vol.28, summer 2003. [40 pgs] RESERVE
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
Daniel Deudney, Whole Earth Security: A Geopolitics of Peace (Worldwatch Institute, 1983),
[69 pgs] RESERVE
Karl P. Mueller, “Totem and Taboo: Depolarizing the Space Weapons Debate,” Astropolitics,
vol.1, no.1, spring 2003, pp.4-28. [24 pgs] RESERVE
Daniel Deudney, “Spacecraft: Planetary Closure, Orbital Geopolitics, and Earth Security,” [35
pgs] MANUSCRIPT
13. NUCLEAR CONSTITUTIONAL SECURITY UNIONS
Jeffrey L. Dunoff, and Joel P, Trachtman, eds., Part I: What Is Constitutionalism Beyond the
State? Part II: The Constitutional Dimensions of Specific International Regimes (ch 4&5 only),
Part III: Cross-cutting Issues, in Ruling the World? Constitutionalism, International Law and
Global Governance (Cambridge University Press, 2009). [353 pgs]
Leonard Beaton, The Reform of Power: A Proposal for an International Security System (Viking,
1972) [10 pgs] EXCERPTS
Alexander Wendt, “The Inevitability of a World State,” European Journal of International
Relations, vol.4, no.8, spring 2004, pp.539-590. [41 pgs] RESERVE
Daniel Deudney, “On World Government” [50 pgs]. MANUSCRIPT
Wesley T. Wooley, Alternatives to Anarchy: American Supranationalism since World War II
(University of Indiana Press, 1988) BACKGROUND
SCHEDULE
1. INTRODUCTION Monday, February 1
PART I THE FIRST GREAT DEBATE
2. NUCLEAR ONE WORLDISM & EARLY DETERRENCE Monday, February 8
3. WAR STRATEGISM & LATER DETERRENCE Monday, February 15
4. ARMS CONTROL, DISARMAMENT & ABOLITION Monday, February 22
5. NUCLEAR POPULISM Monday, March 6
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY
6. NUCLEAR WEAPONS & THE END OF THE COLD WAR Monday, March 8
FIRST PAPER DUE: Monday, March 8
SPRING BREAK (March 15-19)
PART II: THE SECOND GREAT DEBATE
7. PROLIFERATION & COUNTER-PROLIFERATION, Monday, March 22
8. TERRORISM & NON-STATE ACTORS (I), Monday, March 29
9. TERRORISM & NON-STATE ACTORS (II), Monday, April 5
PART III: PROBLEMS & TOPICS
10. TECHNOLOGICAL DETERMINISM, CONTRADICTION & LAGS Monday, April 12
SECOND PAPER DUE: Monday, April 12
11. LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC CONSTITUTIONAL STATES Monday, April 19
12. THE PLANETARY COMMONS: MILITARIZATION & DE-MILITARIZATION Monday
April 26
13. CONSTITUTIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY UNIONS, Monday, May 3.
THIRD PAPER DUE: Wednesday, May 12
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
March 30, 2009
Prof. Siegfried S. Hecker
Encina Hall, C-220
[email protected]
TA: Philippe de Koning
[email protected]
Administrative Support:
Alistair Dawson
[email protected]
Class Location: Encina Hall, East Wing
Conference Room E008 (Ground Floor)
2:15-5:05pm
Syllabus for Introductory Seminar 2009
MS&E 93Q, “Nuclear Weapons, terrorism and energy”
What are nuclear weapons and what do they do? Why do some nations want them? What
are the risks of nuclear terrorism? What is radioactivity? What role does nuclear power
play? Can it help with global warming? Emphasis is on policy options in the light of
changes in the world. Recommended: a course in international relations, engineering, or
physical science.
Objectives of Introductory Seminar Course
• Provide background on nuclear issues.
• Frame the critical nuclear issues of our times.
• Have you study, think deeply about, and debate these issues.
• Have you write about and present your work on selected topics.
This is a seminar course; not history, not science – but it will contain some of both. It is
meant to engage you. For the most part, there are no right or wrong answers.
Seminar Questions
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What are nuclear weapons? What do they do? Why are they different?
What is the nuclear weapon and nuclear weapon material situation around the world?
What is the US policy to deal with the nuclear threats? What are the policies of other
countries? How has the nuclear threat evolved? What are the primary challenges
today?
What is the threat posed by nuclear proliferation (Iran, North Korea, and others)? Is it
inevitable? How is it being and should it be dealt with?
What is the role of international institutions in providing nuclear security and
oversight?
Do nuclear safeguards and inspections work? How good is nuclear intelligence?
What is the nuclear terrorism threat? What can a sub-national group really do? What
does it need? How best can the threat be dealt with? What is the real threat of a “dirty
bomb?”
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
•
•
•
What are the pros and cons of nuclear power? What is the role of nuclear power in
meeting present and future electricity demand? In reducing climate change?
What is the problem of nuclear wastes? How can it be solved?
How can we best balance the benefits of things nuclear with their risks?
Daily Class Schedule
2:15 to 3:00 pm
3:00 to 3:10 pm
3:10 to 4:00 pm
4:00 to 4:10 pm
4:10 to 5:05 pm
Class
Break
Class
Break
Class
Grading
Your grade will be based on:
- 25 % for mid-term paper
- 25 % for class attendance, participation, and finals paper presentation
- 50 % for written finals paper
There will not be mid-term or final exams.
Course details
Seven lectures and discussions (see schedule below) All lecture material and references
will be posted to class web site.
March 31: Introduction, nuclear primer and history
April 7: Nuclear weapons, effects, and nuclear fuel cycle
April 14: Nuclear nations, deterrence, arms control, demise of Soviet Union
April 21: Civilian uses and cross-cutting issues (Dr. Tom Isaacs)
April 28: Nuclear proliferation, international agencies and safeguards
Plus Guest Lecture by Former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry
May 5: Nuclear proliferation, nuclear black market
May 12: Nuclear terrorism, risk and remedies
May 19: Field trip to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (All day trip plus dinner)
May 26: Class presentations
June 2: Class presentations
Mid-term research paper assignment
- Paper assigned on Tuesday, April 21, 2009.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
- This mid-term will count for 25% of your grade.
Completed papers due electronically by 5:00 pm Thursday, April 30 to Philippe de
Koning [email protected] and Alistair Dawson [email protected]. (No
need for hard copy).
- 3 pages text maximum, space and a half, one-inch margins, Times New Roman #
12 font. This paper should be written as a research paper on your selected topic.
Please use class notes and additional research to write your paper. (Endnotes and
references encouraged to demonstrate that you have done some research. These
can be in addition to your 3-page text limit).
Problem: Why did xxx build the bomb?
• Put in context of why countries decide to acquire nuclear weapons.
• What were the key political and/or technical factors?
• Relate these considerations to what you have learned in this course to
date.
• Conduct some background research, present your analysis (with some
references – not Wikipedia), and state your conclusions.
[xxx – Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, South Africa, India
or Pakistan].
You pick one country. Let Philippe know by e-mail by April 24 which one you
selected.
Final papers Prof. Hecker will pose four or five policy paper problems. You will need to
choose one no later than May 18.
- Your policy paper will require a decision by the National Security Advisor. You will be
the national security analyst writing the policy paper for the NSA.
- Your paper should point to a decision. The general structure should include:
- A concise history and background, including what's needed for a decision.
- Identification and assessment of feasible options, including the best arguments
pro and con for each option.
- A reasoned recommendation.
- The main purpose of the paper is to think about an important question analytically: what
is important, what is known, what would be reasonable decision options? The papers are
analyses, not briefs for any specific answer. The main purpose of the papers is not
primarily to gather data, although judgment in determining what is fact and what is
propaganda or hearsay is important.
- This finals paper will count for 50 % of your grade
- Completed papers due electronically to Prof. Hecker by June 5 with copy to Philippe De
Koning. Deliver hard copy to Philippe only if you do not have electronic version.
- 5 Pages text maximum, space and a half, one-inch margins, Times New Roman # 12
font.
- Endnotes and references encouraged demonstrating that you have done adequate
research. Endnotes can be in addition to your 5-page limit.
- Don’t hesitate to contact Prof. Hecker or Philippe if you have questions.
Presentations:
- Brief (15 minutes, plus 5 minutes for questions and discussion) oral student
presentations on their papers. One half of the students will present on May 26, the other
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
half on June 2. If you decide to use Powerpoint, please bring your presentation to class on
a memory stick.
- One student will be selected to be the lead discussant for each presentation. Each lead
discussant will be given 2 minutes for a critique.
- The grade for your presentation will be factored into the 25 % of your grade that will be
based on attendance and class participation.
- The main purpose of the presentations is to give you some experience on how to present
your results orally and so you can use the comments to help finalize your written paper.
Possible topics for final papers (Prof. Hecker will narrow down these topics before
the deadline.)
• What drives the current nuclear weapons policies in one or several of the nuclear
weapons states? How have these policies been changed to reflect the end of the Cold
War and by concerns about catastrophic terrorism?
• What drives the nuclear ambitions and policies of other states – announced but not
recognized states such as India, Pakistan, and North Korea; unannounced, but capable
Israel; unannounced, but potentially capable Iran; other potentially nuclear-capable
states?
• How do U.S. plans to build the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) affect the
nuclear weapons policies of other nations? How do they affect the nuclear
nonproliferation regime?
• How should the U.S. or the UN Security Council deal with current concerns about
nuclear proliferation, e.g. Iran, North Korea?
• Why did other states give up their nuclear weapons ambitions (for example, South
Africa, Libya, Argentina, and Brazil, among others)?
• How should the world deal with India’s nuclear program? Should the United States –
India nuclear deal proceed from either the U.S. or the Indian perspective? What are
the consequences for non-proliferation? Can the nonproliferation regime encompass
a U.S. – India nuclear deal? Should it, given India’s size and prospects?
• Examine some specific aspects of controlling nuclear proliferation, e.g. keeping
materials under control or preventing nuclear materials export. Or examine the
various proposals to control the fuel cycle (President Bush's February 11, 2004
proposal, IAEA Director General El Baradei’s proposals, UNSC Resolution 1540,
etc.). Evaluate specific aspects from the standpoint of their prospective effectiveness
and of the likelihood of their implementation.
• What is the importance of arms limitations and arms control today? Are the
comprehensive test ban, Moscow treaty, etc., still effective measures of increasing
security?
• Do we (can we) know whether the nuclear black market centered on Pakistan and
extending to North Korea, Iran, Libya, and elsewhere has been shut down?
• Was the UN/IAEA system working so far as verifying the absence of a nuclear
capability in Iraq? If so, why was it not trusted? If not, what is needed?
• Can nuclear material be traced to its source, either before or after an explosion? If so,
can this ability be used to improve control of such materials?
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What would be the main consequences of a nuclear terrorist attack? What are the
most effective measures to prevent such an attack?
Examine the consequences of a “dirty bomb” attack? What is the best way to deal
with this problem?
What factors have led to large nuclear power use in some countries and limited it in
others? What does that mean for the future of nuclear power?
To what extent can nuclear power help abate greenhouse gas emissions? What else is
needed? What are realistic time scales?
How do the environmental impacts of nuclear and coal electric power, the two main
sources of baseline power in most countries, compare? Are the present ways to
internalize social and other external costs adequate?
Why do different countries come to such different conclusions regarding the utility of
reprocessing spent fuel for plutonium?
Some utilities in the United States and elsewhere are looking at the possibility of
building new nuclear reactors. Look at the situation from the standpoint of some
utility, outline the main factors that would enter their decisions, and discuss what
specific government help would do the most good, or whether there should be any
government help at all.
What are the prospects and challenges of substantial increases in nuclear power in
China and in India?
Is it a good idea to export nuclear power to developing countries? What are the
safeguards that should be developed for such export?
Reference texts and papers (to be updated periodically)
1) Robert F. Mozley, “The Politics and Technology of Nuclear Proliferation.” University
of Washington Press, Seattle and London, Paperback, 1998. [Highly recommended –
good background for the course, although one decade out of date on current issues].
2) Richared L. Garwin and Georges Charpak, Metawatts and Megatons: The Future of
Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, by
Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., Paperback 2002. [Recommended for background technological
aspects of all things nuclear].
3) Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, A Touchstone Book, published by
Simon & Schuster, New York, Paperback 1988. [For the serious student of the atomic
bomb and its history – 886 pages].
4) Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, Simon & Schuster,
New York, 1995.
5) Ashton B. Carter and William J. Perry, Preventive Defense: A New Security Strategy
for America, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.
6) McGeorge Bundy, William J. Crowe, Jr., and Sidney Drell, Reducing Nuclear Danger:
The Road Away From the Brink, A Council on Foreign Relations Book, New York, 1993.
7) George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, A World Free of
Nuclear Weapons, Wall Street Journal, Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007.
8) George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger, and Sam Nunn, Toward a NuclearFree World,, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 15, 2008.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
9) S.S. Hecker, “Toward a Comprehensive Safeguards System: Keeping Fissile Materials
Out of Terrorists’ Hands,” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 607 (Sept. 2006) pp. 121-132.
10) Siegfried S. Hecker and William Liou, “Dangerous Dealings: North Korea’s Nuclear
Capabilities and the Threat of Export to Iran,” Arms Control Today, 37 (2007) pp. 6-11.
11) David Bodansky, Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects, Second
Edition, Springer, New York, 2004.
12) Tom Isaacs, Radwaste Management, Going Underground. 2006.
http://www.neimagazine.com/story.asp?sectioncode=76&storyCode=2033577
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
TECHNOLOGY
AND
NATIONAL
SECURITY
Management Science and Engineering 193/293
Fall Quarter, 2009-10
INSTRUCTORS: Siegfried S. Hecker and William J. Perry
Contact Information:
For contacting Prof. Hecker, please see Alistair Dawson: [email protected]
For contacting Prof. Perry, please see Deborah Gordon: [email protected] or
Megan McCullough: [email protected]
TA: David Caswell (Head TA): [email protected]
CLASS TIME: Monday/Wednesday 4:15-5:30PM, Gates B1
OVERVIEW: In this course you will explore the relationship between national security
policy and technology from early history to modern day. Much of the course is focused on
security challenges since World War II, including current security challenges and the
impact that technology plays. We will discuss regional security challenges such as those of
North Korea and Northeast Asia, Iran and the Middle East, Russia, China and South Asia.
We will also cover topical security areas such as nuclear weapons and nuclear
proliferation, terrorism, intelligence, failed states, and biosecurity. We will look at the
most pressing security challenges faced by the Obama administration. Class presentations
and discussion will feature the experience of practitioners in national security and/or
technology, including several guest lectures by eminent people in key areas.
COURSE REQUIREMENTS: This course is offered to both undergraduate and graduate
students. It will have the appropriate standards and assignments. There are no specific
prerequisite courses, but an interest in international security and the role of policy and
technology is advised. The course is offered on-line to SCPD students. For all other
students, attendance at lectures and class participation is necessary since most of the
material presented is not available in textbooks. Grading is based on students’
performance on two take-home exams and a policy paper.
EXAMS: Two take-home exams will be assigned to test your comprehension of the lecture
material. The first exam will be posted Monday, October 5 following class; it is due
Monday, October 12 prior to class. The second exam will be posted Monday, October 26
and will be due on Monday, November 2.
POLICY PAPER: During the quarter, students will be asked to write a policy paper
(approximately 5 pages long), prepared as a briefing to the president, national security
advisor, or equivalent senior official. The topic will be selected from materials covered in
class lectures. The policy paper will be graded and returned to the student with
suggestions for improving it. The student must re-submit the paper, incorporating
suggested changes as appropriate, after which it will be re-graded.
Students signed up for either MS&E 193 or 293 will write a policy paper that includes, at a
minimum, a baseline quantitative analysis in the form of a decision tree. Graduate
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
students taking MS&E 293 will need to incorporate sensitivity analysis into their paper in
addition to the decision tree. We will, of course, expect a more detailed analysis from
graduate students than undergraduate students. There will be a tutorial on creating
decision trees later in the quarter. Students are highly encouraged to meet with course
TAs for one-on-one help if needed (TA office hours will be posted later in the quarter).
GRADING: Your final course grade will be determined by the policy paper (50%), and two
take-home exams (25% each).
READINGS: There are no required textbooks for the course. Individual reading
assignments and suggestions will be posted on the class website at
http://www.stanford.edu/class/msande193/ . URLs are also provided for some
selections. The reading materials will enhance your background understanding of the
subjects and, in some cases, will give you pertinent current status of issues and challenges.
Some are quite long and detailed – these are meant for students who have a serious
interest in individual subjects.
OFFICE HOURS: Professor Hecker and Perry will not be holding office hours. They
encourage you, however to sign up for one of the brown bag lunches being offered.
Check the course web page for the schedule. For additional information regarding the
brown bag lunches, please contact Alistair Dawson at [email protected]. The
teaching assistants will have their office hours posted on the site for the weeks of 2
November, 9 November, and 30 November.
LECTURE SCHEDULE AND DATES OF NOTE:
Monday, September 21
Prof. William J. Perry: Early History
• From Crossbow to H-Bomb, Bernard Brodie and Fawn Brodie, Indiana
University Press, 1973
o Chapters 1: Antiquity, Chapter 2: Middle Ages, and Chapter 3: Impact of
Gunpowder
Wednesday, September 23
Prof. William J. Perry: United States’ Civil War and World War I
• Geoffrey C. Ward, The Civil War: an illustrated history/George C. Ward with Ric
Burns and Ken Burns, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., American Documentaries, Inc. 1990.
Monday, September 28
Prof. William J. Perry: World War II
• David Kennedy, Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and
War, 1929-1945, Ch. 18: “The War of Machines,” Oxford University Press, New
York, New York (1999).
Wednesday, September 30
Prof. William J. Perry: Cold War and Offset Strategy
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
•
•
•
William J. Perry, Desert Storm and Deterrence, Foreign Affairs, 1991
http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/19910901faessay6102/william-jperry/desert-storm-and-deterrence.html
William J. Perry, Military Technology: an Historical Perspective, Technology in
Society, 2004
X, Sources of Soviet Conduct, Foreign Affairs, 1947
http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/19470701faessay25403/x/the-sources-ofsoviet-conduct.html
Monday, October 5 (Exams assigned)
Prof. Siegfried S. Hecker: Nuclear History and Fundamentals
• Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Touchstone/Simon
&Schuster, New York, New York (1988). (For the serious student of nuclear
history)
Wednesday, October 7
Prof. Siegfried S. Hecker: Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Energy, Evolution of
Nuclear Threat
• Richard L. Garwin and Georges Charpak, Megawatts and Megatons: The Future
of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons, The University of Chicago Press,
Chicago, Illinois (2002).
• David Bodansky, Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects, 2nd ed,
Springer-Verlag, New York, New York (2004). (For serious student of nuclear
energy and nuclear physics)
Friday, October 9 Last day to drop the class
Monday, October 12 (Exams due)
Prof. Siegfried S. Hecker: Cold War, Arms Control, Russia in Transition (Exams Due)
• S. S. Hecker, “Thoughts about an Integrated Strategy for Nuclear Cooperation
with Russia,” The Nonproliferation Review, Summer 2001, 1-24 (2001).
Wednesday, October 14
Dr. Joseph Martz: Evolution of Nuclear Arsenals, Current Nuclear Issues
• Reading material to follow
Monday, October 19
Prof. Siegfried S. Hecker: Nuclear Proliferation and Nuclear Terrorism
• Robert F. Mozley, The Politics and Technology of Nuclear Proliferation,
University of Washington Press, Seattle and London (1998).
• The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 607 (Sept. 2006)
Dedicated volume on nuclear terrorism.
• Michael Levi, On Nuclear Terrorism, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts (2007).
• Graham Allison, Nuclear Terrorism, The Ultimate Preventable Catastrophe, A
Times Book, August 2004. Chapters 2, 3, 7
Wednesday, October 21
Prof. Siegfried S. Hecker: North Korea, Iran and Syria
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
•
•
•
•
•
Siegfried S. Hecker, “Denuclearizing North Korea,” Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 64, 2, (May/June 2008) pp. 44-49.
Siegfried S. Hecker and William Liou, “Dangerous Dealings: North Korea’s
Nuclear Capabilities and the Threat of Export to Iran,” Arms Control Today,
March 2007. Available at http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_03/heckerliou.
Scott D. Sagan, "How to Keep the Bomb from Iran," Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct
2006, pp. 45-59.
Siegfried S. Hecker, “The Risks of North Korea’s Nuclear Restart,” Bulletin of the
Atomic Scientists, May 12, 2009.
Mike Chinoy, Meltdown: The Inside Story of the North Korean Nuclear Crisis, St.
Martin’s Press, New York, New York (2008).
Monday, October 26 (Exams assigned)
Prof. William J. Perry: Post Cold War, Nunn-Lugar Program, Modern Security
Threats
• Ashton Carter and William Perry, Preventive Defense, Brookings Institution Press,
1999, Chapter 1, 2, 3, 5
•
Wednesday, October 28
Prof. William J. Perry: Introduction to Terrorism, Toward a Nuclear Weapons-Free
World
• George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Samuel Nunn,
Kissinger, Shultz, Perry & Nunn call for A World Free of Nuclear Weapons. The Wall
Street Journal, January 5, 2007.
• George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Samuel Nunn, Toward
a Nuclear-Free World. The Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2008.
http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120036422673589947.html
• Jonathan Tepperman, Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb. Newsweek,
September 7, 2009, pp. 44-48.
• Michael May, The Trouble with Disarmament: Abolishing nuclear weapons is a good
idea in theory. In practice, however, it would be impossible to verify and would make the
world less safe. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 64, No. 5, pp. 20-21.
November/December 2009.
• Harold Brown and John Deutch, The Nuclear Disarmament Fantasy. The Wall
Street Journal, November 19, 2007.
• George Perkovich and James M. Acton, ed. Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate.
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C., 2009.
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/abolishing_nuclear_weapons_debat
e.pdf
Monday, November 2 (Exams due) (Policy paper assigned)
Dr. Thomas Fingar: Intelligence: Wrong on Iraq, right on Iran (Exams due) (Problem
assigned)
• Thomas Fingar, “A Tale of Two Estimates: How Lessons from the 2002 Estimate
on Iraq WMD Shaped the 2007 Iran Nuclear NIE,” Draft
• National Intelligence Council, Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass
Destruction [hereafter Iraq WMD], October 2002. Declassified key judgments
released on July 18, 2003 are available at
http://www.fas.orf/irp/cia/products/iraq-wmd.html
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
•
•
•
Central Intelligence Agency, Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs at
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm (Skim to compare language used in this White
Paper to that used in the Estimate)
Specific deficiencies of the Iraq WMD estimate are described at great length in
Senate, Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the US Intelligence
Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq together with Additional
Views, 108th Congress, 2d Session, S. Report 108-301, July 9, 2004 at
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmdintell_intro.htm , go to table of contents and read pages 7-28.
National Intelligence Council, Iran Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities estimate
at http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf.
Wednesday, November 4
Dr. Frank Pabian: Intelligence and Technology
• Frank Pabian, "Commercial Satellite Imagery: Another Tool in the
Nonproliferation Verification and Monitoring Toolkit, Chapter 12 in Nuclear
Safeguards, Security and Nonproliferation: Achieving Security with Technology
and Policy, ed. James Doyle, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2008, pp. 221-150.
Monday, November 9
Prof. Abbas Milani: Iran’s Nuclear Program: Past Contours, Future Challenges
• “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities.” National Intelligence Estimate.
November 2007.
• Abbas Milani, “Pious Populist: Understanding the Rise of Iran’s President,”
Boston Review, November/December 2007, pp. 7-20.
Wednesday, November 11
Dr. Feroz Khan: Pakistan and Security in South Asia
• Feroz Hassan Khan, “Nuclear Security in Pakistan: Separating Myth from
Reality,” Arms Control Today, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 12-20 (July/ August 2009).
• Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, “Nuclear Security in Pakistan: Reducing the Risks of
Nuclear Terrorism.” Arms Control Today, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 6-11 (July/August
2009).
• Feroz Hassan Khan and Peter R Lavoy, "Pakistan: The Dilemma of
Deterrence" in Muthiah Alagappa ed. The Long Shadow: Nuclear Weapons and
Security in 21st Century Asia (Stanford University Press, 2008) pp 215-240.
• Walter C. Ladwig III, “A Cold Start for Hot Wars? The Indian Army’s New
Limited War Doctrine, ”International Security, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Winter 2007/08).
• Peter R Lavoy, " Islamabad Nuclear Postures: Its Premises and
Implementation," in Henry D. Sokolski ed. Pakistan's Nuclear Future: Worries
Beyond War (Carlisle Barracks: Strategic Studies Institute, January 2008,
pp 129- 165.
• Paul Kapur, Dangerous Deterrent: Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Conflict in
South Asia, (Stanford University Press, 2007).
Monday, November 16 (Policy paper due)
Prof. Larry Diamond: Building Democracies after Conflict
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
•
•
•
Francis Fukuyama, "Guidelines for Future Nation-Builders," pp. 231-244 in
Fukuyama, ed., Nation-Building: Beyond Afghanistan and Iraq (Johns Hopkins U
Press, 2006).
Larry Diamond, “What Went Wrong and Right in Iraq,” pp. 173-195 in
Fukuyama, above.
Larry Diamond, “Promoting Democracy after Conflict,” Taiwan Journal of
Democracy 2 (December 2006): 93-116.
Wednesday, November 18
Martha Crenshaw: Rethinking the ‘War on Terrorism’
• Reading material to follow
Monday, November 30 (Policy papers returned)
William J. Perry and Siegfried S. Hecker : North Korea, China, Iran, Zero, Wrapup
Wednesday, December 2
Paul Jackson: Biosecurity Challenges (And Prof. Hecker on guidance for re-writing
policy papers)
• Reading material to follow.
Monday, December 7 (Policy paper re-write due)
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Speaker biographies:
Lecturers
Hecker, Siegfried is a professor (research) in the Department of Management Science
and Engineering, a senior fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute (FSI), and co-director of
the Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC). He is also an emeritus
director of Los Alamos National Laboratory. Over the past 15 years, he has fostered
cooperation with the Russian nuclear laboratories to secure and safeguard the vast
stockpile of ex-Soviet fissile materials. Hecker works closely with the Russian Academy
of Sciences and is actively involved with the U.S. National Academies, serving as a
member of the National Academies Committee on International Security and Arms
Control Nonproliferation Panel. Hecker joined Los Alamos National Laboratory as
graduate research assistant and postdoctoral fellow before returning as technical staff
member following a tenure at General Motors Research. He led the laboratory's
Materials Science and Technology Division and Center for Materials Science before
serving as laboratory director from 1986 through 1997, and senior fellow until July 2005.
Perry, William is the Michael and Barbara Berberian Professor at Stanford University,
with a joint appointment at FSI and the School of Engineering. He is a senior fellow at
FSI and serves as co-director of the Preventive Defense Project, a research collaboration
of Stanford and Harvard Universities. He is an expert in U.S. foreign policy, national
security and arms control. He was the co-director of CISAC from 1988 to 1993, during
which time he was also a professor (half time) at Stanford. Professor Perry was the 19th
secretary of defense for the United States, serving from February 1994 to January 1997.
He previously served as deputy secretary of defense (1993-1994) and as under secretary
of defense for research and engineering (1977-1981).
Speakers:
Crenshaw, Martha is a senior fellow at CISAC and FSI and a professor of political
science by courtesy. She was the Colin and Nancy Campbell Professor of Global Issues
and Democratic Thought and professor of government at Wesleyan University in
Middletown, Conn., from 1974 to 2007. She is a Lead Investigator with START (the
National Center for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism), a Center of
Excellence established by the Department of Homeland Security. Her current research
projects focus on why the U.S. is targeted by terrorism and the effectiveness of
counterterrorism policies.
Diamond, Larry is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and
founding coeditor of the Journal of Democracy. He is also co-director of the International
Forum for Democratic Studies of the National Endowment for Democracy. At Stanford
University, he is professor by courtesy of political science and sociology and
coordinates the democracy program of the new Center on Democracy, Development,
and the Rule of Law. During 2002–3, he served as a consultant to the U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) and was a contributing author of its report Foreign
Aid in the National Interest. Currently he serves as a member of USAID's Advisory
Committee on Voluntary Foreign Aid. He has also advised and lectured to the World
Bank, the United Nations, the State Department, and other governmental and
nongovernmental agencies dealing with governance and development. During the first
three months of 2004, Diamond served as a senior adviser on governance to the
Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Fingar, Thomas was assistant secretary of the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence
and Research (INR) from July 2004 until May 2005, when he was named deputy director
of national intelligence for analysis and chairman of the National Intelligence Council.
While at the State Department he served as acting assistant secretary for intelligence
and research, principal deputy assistant secretary, deputy assistant secretary for
analysis, director of the Office of Analysis for East Asia and the Pacific, and chief of the
China division. His intelligence career began in 1970 as the senior German linguist in
the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, USAREUR & 7th Army in
Heidelberg, Germany. Between 1975 and 1986 he held a number of positions at Stanford
University, including senior research associate in the Center for International Security
and Arms Control and director of the university’s U.S.-China Relations Program. Other
previous positions include assignment to the National Academy of Sciences as codirector of the U.S.-China Education Clearinghouse, adviser to the Congressional Office
of Technology Assessment, and consultant to numerous U.S. government agencies and
private sector organizations. Fingar holds a BA in government and history from Cornell
University and an MA and PhD in political science from Stanford University. He is a
career member of the Senior Executive Service. His principal foreign languages are
Chinese and German. Fingar has published dozens of books and articles, mostly on
aspects of Chinese politics and policymaking.
Jackson, Paul: Biography to follow
Khan, Feroz Hassan (Brigadier General retired) is currently on the faculty of the
Department of National Security Affairs in U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey
California. He previously served with the Pakistani Army for 32 years. His last held the
post of Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs, within the Strategic Plans
Division, Joint Services Headquarters, which is the secretariat of Pakistan’s Nuclear
Command Authority. His military career blends with numerous diplomatic and
scholarly assignments. . He has experienced combat action and command on active
fronts on the line of control in Siachin Glacier and Kashmir. He served domestically and
abroad in the United States, Europe, and South Asia, in particular assisting Pakistan’s
nuclear diplomacy. Among his academic degrees, General Khan holds an M.A. from the
Paul Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University.
He has held a series of visiting fellowships at Stanford University; the Woodrow Wilson
International Center for Scholars; the Brookings Institution; the Center for NonProliferation Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies; and the
Cooperative Monitoring Center, Sandia National Laboratory. Since mid 1990s, General
Khan has been making key contributions in formulating and advocating Pakistan's
security policy on nuclear and conventional arms control and strategic stability in South
Asia. He has produced recommendations for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
represented Pakistan in several multilateral and bilateral arms control negotiations. He
has published and participated in several security related national and international
conferences and seminars. He has also been teaching as a visiting faculty member at the
Department of the Defense and Strategic Studies, Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.
General Khan is currently writing a book on the history of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons
and U.S. policy, expected publication in 2010.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Martz, Joseph has had a 20+ year career focused on issues surrounding nuclear security
and nuclear weapons. The majority of his career has focused on nuclear weapons and
materials, and he has led a variety of national and international projects related to
nuclear weapon design and maintenance, plutonium storage and disposition, stockpile
life extension and plutonium aging, nuclear operations, and nuclear intelligence
analysis. Dr. Martz is a 25 yr. employee of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in
which he has served in a variety of research, leadership and management positions. In
addition to his research at Los Alamos, he has led national project teams including the
recent reliable-replacement warhead design competition and several complex nuclear
material experiments. Dr. Martz is the author of over 50 papers and invited
presentations in these areas.
Pabian, Frank is a senior nonproliferation infrastructure analyst at Los Alamos
National Laboratory, has over 37 years experience in the nuclear nonproliferation field
including six years with the Office of Imagery Analysis and 18 years with Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory’s “Z” Division. Frank also served as a Chief Inspector
for the International Atomic Energy Agency during United Nations inspections in Iraq
from 1996-1998 focusing on “Capable Sites.” In December 2002, Frank served as one of
the first US nuclear inspectors back in Iraq with UN/IAEA. While at Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Frank has developed and presented commercial satellite imagery
based briefings on foreign clandestine nuclear facilities to the International Nuclear
Suppliers Group (NSG), the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), and the Foreign Ministries of China and
India on behalf of the NNSA and STATE.
Milani, Abbas is the Hamid and Christina Moghadam Director of Iranian Studies at
Stanford University and a visiting professor in the department of political science. In
addition, Dr. Milani is a research fellow and co-director of the Iran Democracy Project at
the Hoover Institution. His expertise is U.S./Iran relations, Iranian cultural, political,
and security issues.
Milani was a professor of history and political science and chair of the department at
Notre Dame de Namur University and a research fellow at the Institute of International
Studies at the University of California at Berkeley. Milani was an assistant professor in
the faculty of law and political science at Tehran University and a member of the board
of directors of Tehran University's Center for International Studies from 1979 to 1987.
He was a research fellow at the Iranian Center for Social Research from 1977 to 1978 and
an assistant professor at the National University of Iran from 1975 to 1977.
Dr. Milani is the author of Eminent Persians: Men and Women Who Made Modern Iran,
1941-1979, (Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY, 2 volumes, November, 2008); King
of Shadows: Essays on Iran’s Encounter with Modernity, Persian text published in the
U.S. (Ketab Corp., Spring 2005); Lost Wisdom: Rethinking Persian Modernity in Iran,
(Mage 2004); The Persian Sphinx: Amir Abbas Hoveyda and the Riddle of the Iranian
Revolution (Mage, 2000); Modernity and Its Foes in Iran (Gardon Press, 1998); Tales of
Two Cities: A Persian Memoir (Mage 1996); On Democracy and Socialism, a collection
of articles coauthored with Faramarz Tabrizi (Pars Press, 1987); and Malraux and the
Tragic Vision (Agah Press, 1982). Milani has also translated numerous books and
articles into Persian and English.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Milani's articles have been published in journals, magazines, and newspapers including
the Boston Review, Brown Journal of World Affairs, Herald Tribune, Journal of
Democracy, New York Times, Washington Post, Washington Quarterly, Wall Street
Journal, Encyclopedia Iranica, Hoover Digest, Iranshenasi, The Middle East Journal,
New York Review of Books, San Francisco Chronicle, and the Times Literary
Supplement. He has been interviewed for radio and television, appearing on BBC,
CNN, NPR, KQED, Radio France, Radio Farda, Radio Free Europe, Radio and
Television of Iran, and Voice of America.
He is a member of the American Association of Political Science, member of the board
of directors for ISG (Iranian Studies Group at MIT), and the Association of Iranian
Studies.
Milani received his BA in political science and economics from the University of
California at Berkeley in 1970 and his PhD in political science from the University of
Hawaii in 1974.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
M
W
M
W
M
W
F
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
W
M
T
Date
21-Sep
23-Sep
28-Sep
30-Sep
5-Oct
7-Oct
9-Oct
12-Oct
14-Oct
19-Oct
21-Oct
26-Oct
28-Oct
2-Nov
4-Nov
9-Nov
11-Nov
16-Nov
18-Nov
23-Nov
25-Nov
30-Nov
2-Dec
12/7/09
15-Dec
Lecturer
Subject
Cold War, Arms Control, Russia in Transition (Exams due)
Evolution of Nuclear Arsenals, Current Nuclear Issues
Russia and Nuclear Proliferation
Nonproliferation and Introduction to North Korea
Nunn-Lugar Program, Nuclear Weapons-free World, Modern Security Threats (Exams assigned)
North Korea and Iran
Intelligence: Wrong on Iraq, right on Iran (Exams due) (Problem assigned)
Intelligence and Technology
Iran's Nuclear Program: Past Contours, Future Challenges
Pakistan and Security in South Asia
Rethinking the "War on Terror" (Policy paper due)
Building Democracies after Conflict
Thanksgiving recess
Thanksgiving recess
Nuclear energy, Nuclear terrorism, Course Overwiew (Papers returned)
Biosecurity Challenges
Re-worked papers due
Early History
US Civil War, World War I
World War II
Cold War, Offset Strategy
Nuclear History and Fundamentals, (Exams assigned)
Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Energy, Evolution of Nuclear Threat
26 Oct. 2009
MS&E 193/293
4:15 to 5:30 pm Mondays and Wednesdays, Fall Quarter 2009
Current Course Outline
The Role of Technology in National Security 2009
Prof. William J. Perry
Prof. Perry
Prof. Perry
Prof. Perry
Prof. Siegfried S. Hecker
Prof. Hecker
last day to drop
Prof. Hecker
Dr. Joseph Martz
Prof.Hecker
Prof. Hecker
Prof. Perry
Prof. Hecker and Prof. Perry
Dr. Thomas Fingar
Dr. Frank Pabian
Prof. Abbas Milani
Dr. Feroz Khan
Prof. Martha Crenshaw
Prof. Larry Diamond
Thanksgiving
Thanksgiving
Prof. Perry and Hecker
Dr. Paul Jackson
Re-worked papers due
Grades due
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Syllabus: STS 170, PUBPOL 175
Dr. Rebecca Slayton
[email protected]
Time: Tu/Th 1:15-2:45 pm
Place: Classroom 60-62L
TECHNOLOGY IN MODERN SECURITY DISCOURSE
STS 170, PUBLPOL 175
Autumn 2006
1
Synopsis
Whether we discuss nuclear proliferation or nuclear containment, ballistic missiles or
antimissiles, biological weapons or vaccines, data mining or big brother, technology
plays a central role in discourse about international security. Common and conflicting
stories emerge around all of these technologies; new weapons signify apocalypse or
utopia, civilization or barbarism, femininity or masculinity, raising provocative questions.
How do weapons take on cultural significance? Why are some weapons stigmatized
while others are deemed acceptable? How do images and language shape weapons
policy, and vice versa? What is at stake in these images?
This course examines these questions through an analysis of discourse about a
wide range of weapons, with an emphasis on innovations in the twentieth century United
States. The course is organized around specific weapons systems, but the overarching
goal is to learn how discourse about technologies shapes conceptions of their relation to
national security. We will accomplish this both by studying scholarly analyses of
discourse, and by conducting original analyses of discourse about technology and
national security.
Course Requirements and Grading
Reading and Discussion (10%)
Be sure to complete all reading assignments and participate in discussions and other inclass activities.
1
Image from NYT editorial, January 3, 1973.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Syllabus: Technology in Modern Security Discourse
Dr. Rebecca Slayton
Snapshot Paragraphs (30%)
Before each class meeting, formulate a single paragraph describing the most important
idea or question raised in the reading. It may help to select a sentence or paragraph that
best summarizes the reading, and explain why. Post your paragraph to the class
discussion forum by midnight on the day before we meet. These will be discussed in
class. Late paragraphs (i.e. those sent at 12:30 am) may help you prepare for class, but
they will not receive credit.
Midterm (30%)
The midterm exam will consist of two parts, equally weighted. First, a draft outline of
your final paper will be due via e-mail on midnight the day of the exam. Second, an inclass exam will consist of short essay questions.
Final Paper (30%)
There is no final exam, but a final paper 10-20 pages in length will be due on the last day
of finals period, Friday, December 15. This should address a controversial issue at the
intersection of technology and national security, and deconstruct the language of actors
taking multiple positions in the debate.
Reading and Discussion Schedule
Tuesday, September 26: Introduction
Thursday, September 28: Atom Bombs and Superbombs
• Paul Boyer, By the Bomb’s Early Light: American Thought
and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age (New York:
Pantheon Books, 1985). Excerpts assigned in class.
Tuesday, October 3: The Wizards of Armageddon
• Fred Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon (New York:
Simon & Schuster, 1983). Chapter 14, “Dr. Strangelove,”
pp 220-231.
• Viewing: Dr. Strangelove (93 minutes)
Mushroom Cloud over
Nagasaki, 1945
Thursday, October 5: Techno-strategic Discourse
• Carol Cohn, “Sex and Death in the Rational World of
Defense Intellectuals,” Signs 12, no. 4 (1987): 687-718.
• Spencer Weart, Nuclear Fear (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1988), Chapter 12, “The
Imagination of Survival,” pp 215-240.
Tuesday, October 10: Ritualizing Nuclear Weapons
• Hugh Gusterson, Nuclear Rites: A Weapons Laboratory
at the End of the Cold War (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1996). Selections:
o Chapter 5: “Bodies and Machines,” pp 101-131.
o Chapters 6 & 7: sections from pp 152-175.
2
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Syllabus: Technology in Modern Security Discourse
Dr. Rebecca Slayton
Thursday, October 12: Debating Bombs to Reactors…and Back
• Spencer Weart, Nuclear Fear (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988),
Chapter 16, “The Debate Explodes” pp 309-27.
• McCrea and Markle, Minutes to Midnight: Nuclear Weapons Protest in America
(Newbury Park: Sage, 1989). Excerpts:
o Chapter 1: The Rise And Fall Of The Freeze p 15-18
o Chapter 5: The Freeze: Origins, Growth, And Decline, p 90-115
Tuesday, October 17: ‘Anti-missiles’ and ‘Peace Shields’
• Emanuel Adler. “The Emergence of Cooperation: National Epistemic
Communities and the International Evolution of the Idea of Nuclear Arms
Control.” International Organization 42, no. 1 (1992): 101-145. Excerpts
assigned online.
• Robert Manoff, “Modes of War and Modes of Social Address: The Text of SDI,”
Journal of Communication, Winter 1989, 39(1) pp 59-84.
• Rebecca Slayton, “Discursive Choices: Boycotting Star Wars between Science
and Politics” Social Studies of Science, forthcoming 2007 (40 pages).
• Optional news articles
o “Nike Zeus Intercepts a Missile Fired From U.S. Over Pacific.” New York
Times, July 20, 1962.
o “Khrushchev Says Missile Can ‘Hit a Fly’ in Space.” New York Times,
July 17, 1962.
o “Army Test Missile is Said to Destroy a Dummy Warhead,” New York
Times, June 12, 1984.
o “This Missile is No Magic Bullet.” New York Times, June 13 1984.
o “Inquiry Finds ‘Star Wars’ Tried Plan to Exaggerate Test Results,” New
York Times, July 23, 1994.
Thursday, October 19: Laser Weapons
• Ann Peters, “Blinding laser weapons: New Limits on the
Technology of Warfare,” Loyola of Los Angeles
International and Comparative Law Journal Vol 18,
1996, p 733-766.
• Rebecca Slayton, “Reporting Laser Weapons: Science or
Science Fiction?” Paper presented at 4S annual meeting,
2001.
Star Wars (1977)
Tuesday, October 24: “Smart Bombs” – Real Uses and Discursive Dangers
• Wrage, Stephen “When War Isn’t Hell: A Cautionary Tale,” Current History
102:32-35 January 2003.
http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=276171211&Fmt=3&clientId=417&RQT=
309&VName=PQD
• Meilinger, Phillip, “Precision Aerospace Power, Discrimination, and the Future of
War,” Aerospace Power Journal 15:12-20 Fall 2001.
http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj01/fal01/meilinger.html
3
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Syllabus: Technology in Modern Security Discourse
•
Dr. Rebecca Slayton
Victor J Caldarola, “Time and the Television War,” pp 97-105, in Seeing through
the media: the Persian Gulf War edited by Susan Jeffords and Lauren Rabinovitz
(New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994).
Thursday, October 26: Theaters of War
• Paul N. Edwards. The Closed World: Computers
and the Politics of Discourse in Cold War America.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996. pp 75-146.
• Tim Lenoir, “Programming Theaters of War:
Gamemakers as Soldiers,” pp 175-198, In Bombs
and Bandwidth: The Emerging Relationship
Between IT and Security, edited by Robert Latham
(New York: New Press, 2003)
SAGE control room, shown on cover of
Tuesday, October 31: Safety Critical Systems
Edwards, The Closed World
• Alan Borning, “Computer System Reliability and
Nuclear War,” Communications of the Association
for Computing Machinery, 30, no. 3 (1987): pp 112-31.
• Rebecca Slayton. “Speaking As Scientists: Computer Professionals in the Star
Wars Debate.” History and Technology 19, no. 4 (2004): 335-364.
• U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Management and Technology
Division. Patriot Missile Software Problem February 1992. Available at
www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/im92026.htm.
Thursday, November 2: Wargames
• Viewing: Wargames (114 minutes)
Tuesday, November 7: Midterm
//*****//
Old Threats, New Fears: Technology in the “War on Terror”
//*****//
Thursday, November 9: Is Big Brother Watching?
• Mary DeRosa, Data Mining and Data Analysis for Counterterrorism, Center for
Strategic and International Studies, pp 1-23.
• “The Emergence of a Global Infrastructure for Mass Registration and
Surveillance,” International Campaign Against Mass Surveillance, April 2005.
Excerpts assigned in class.
• Short articles:
o Scott Carlson and Andrea Foster, “Colleges Fear Anti-terrorism Law
Could Turn Them Into Big Brother,” Chronicle of Higher Education,
March 1 2002, Vol 48 Issue 25, p A31.
o Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Scott Higham, “U.S. Border Security at a
Crossroads,” May 23 2005 WP A1
o Eric Lichtblau, “Behind-the-Scenes Battle On Tracking Data Mining,”
NYT p 16 July 24, 2005
4
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Syllabus: Technology in Modern Security Discourse
Dr. Rebecca Slayton
o Michael A Fletcher, “President Calls on Congress To Extend Patriot Act
Provisions,” NYT July 21 2005.
o Jonathan Krim, “Panel Urged to Review Passenger Screening,” WP April
7 2005
o Jonathan Krim, “Critics Question Impartiality of Panel Studying Privacy
Rights,” WP Mar 11 2005
o Martha T Moore, “Cities Opening more video surveillance eyes,” USA
Today July 18 2005.
Tuesday, November 14: Chemical Weapons
• Hugh R Slotten, “Humane Chemistry or Scientific
Barbarism? American Responses to World War I Poison
Gas, 1915-1930,” The Journal of American History 77,
no 2 (1990): 476-98.
• Jonathan B. Tucker, “Lessons from Case Studies,” in
Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and
Biological Weapons (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,
2001), p 249-269.
Soldier’s protective mask, cover
of Chemical and Biological
Thursday, November 16: Biological Weapons
• John J Haldane, “Ethics and Biological Warfare,” and Nicholas A Sims,
“Morality and Biological Warfare,” Arms Control 8, no. 1 (1987): 5-35.
• Edward M. Eitzen, Jr. and Ernest T. Takafuji, “Historical Overview of Biological
Warfare,” in Textbook of Military Medicine: Medical Aspects of Chemical and
Biological Warfare (Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon General, Department
of the Army, 1997), p 415-423, available at
http://www.vnh.org/MedAspChemBioWar/chaptersinpdf/Ch-18electrv699.pdf
• Short articles on polio virus synthesis
o Andrew Pollack, “Traces of Terror: The Science,” New York Times, July
12, 2002 A1.
o Rick Weiss, “Polio-Causing Virus Created in N.Y. Lab,” Washington
Post, July 12 2002, A1.
o Rick Weiss, “Mail-Order Molecules Brew a Terrorism Debate.”
Washington Post, July 17 2002, A1.
o Editorial, “Synthetic Bioterror,” New York Times, July 18 2002, A20.
o Steven M Block. “A Not-so-Cheap Stunt.” Science 297 (2 August 2002),
pp 769-70.
• Short articles on toxic milk
o Lawrence Wein, “Got Toxic Milk?” New York Times May 30 2005.
o Laura Donahue, “Censoring Science Won’t Make us Any Safer,”
Washington Post B5, June 26 2005.
o Rick Weiss, “Report Warns of Threat to Milk Supply,” New York Times,
June 29 2005, A8.
• Short articles on bio-defense:
o Marylia Kelley and Jay Coughlan, “Mixing Bugs and Bombs,” Bulletin of
Atomic Scientists September/October 2003, p 25-31.
5
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Syllabus: Technology in Modern Security Discourse
Dr. Rebecca Slayton
o `Kelly Field, “Residents Fight Boston U’s Biosafety Laboratory,” The
Chronicle of Higher Education, 25 June 2004 p 1-6.
Nov 21/23: Thanksgiving Recess, No Classes
Tuesday, November 28: Dirty Bombs
• Viewing: Dirty Bomb, Nova Program (2003) 60 min.
• Reviews of Dirty Bomb
o “Terror’s Dual Threats of Bombs and Biology,”
New York Times, Feb 25, 2003, E6.
o “Nova” tackles an explosive issue,” Boston
Globe, Feb 25, 2003, E7.
o “Weapons of Mass Disruption,” National Review
Online, Feb 14 2003
Symbol of a dirty bomb; from
https://www.nationalreview.com/miller/miller022 http://Howstuffworks.com
503.asp
• Short articles: Padilla & Dirty Bomb
o “US Says it Halted Qaeda Plot to Use Radioactive Bomb,” New York
Times, June 11, 2002, A1.
o “Lawmakers Question CIA on Dirty-Bomb Suspect,” Washington Post,
June 13, 2002. A11
o “Protecting us without tainting the constitution,” Boston Globe, July 17,
2004, A11.
o Peter Zimmerman and Cheryl Loeb, “Dirty Bombs: The Threat
Revisited,” Defense Horizons, January 2004 38: 1-11.
Thursday, November 30: The Dilemmas of Dual-Use
• Special Guest lecture: Sonja Schmid
Tuesday, December 5: Nuclear Proliferation and Containment
• Scott Sagan, “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three models in search of
a bomb,” International Security, Vol. 21, No 3 (Winter 1996/97) pp 54-86.
• Donald MacKenzie, and Graham Spinardi. “Tacit knowledge, weapons design,
and the uninvention of nuclear weapons,” American Journal of Sociology 101
(1995). Excerpts: pp 44-75, pp 87-93.
• Hugh Gusterson: “Mr. Powell goes to the UN,” unpublished manuscript (2006).
Thursday, December 7: Concluding Class
//*****// Final Papers Due
6
//*****//
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA
The Atomic Age – History 105A – Winter 2009
Instructor: Prof. W. Patrick McCray
Time: 9:00 – 9:50 on M-W-F in NH 1006
Office and Office Hours: HSSB 4224; Friday 10-12 or by appointment
Phone: 805.893.2665
E-mail: [email protected]
COURSE DESCRIPTION: This course examines important aspects of the nuclear era from
1945 to the signing of the first arms treaties between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R in the
1960s. We will also pay some attention to nuclear issues during the Carter-Reagan years.
A course on the atomic age could be taught from a number of perspectives – social
history, history of technology, the impact of nuclear weapons on military history, the
effect of atomic weapons on foreign policy, and so forth. The focus here is on two
primary areas – the diverse roles that scientists had during the Atomic Age and the
powerful influence nuclear weapons had over American military strategy, politics, and
popular culture.
TEXTBOOKS: Please purchase the following paperback books. There is also a short
reader available for purchase at The Alternative Copy Shop in Isla Vista
1. Lawrence Badash, Scientists and the Development of Nuclear Weapons: From
Fission to the Limited Test Ban Treaty (ISBN: 1-57392-538-1)
2. Philip Cantelon, Richard Hewlett, and Robert Williams (eds.), The American Atom
(Referred to below as ‘CHW’) (ISBN: 0-8122-1354-8)
3. Richard Smoke, National Security and the Nuclear Dilemma (ISBN: 0-07-059352-3)
4. John Hersey, Hiroshima (ISBN: 0-679-72103-7)
5. John McPhee, The Curve of Binding Energy (New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux,
1973, ISBN = 0374515980)
6. Class reader; available at Alterative Copy Shop in IV
RECOMMENDED BOOKS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
1. Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb. (New York: Simon and Schuster,
1986).
2. Richard Rhodes, Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb. (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1996).
3. Allan M. Winkler. Life Under a Cloud: American Anxiety About the Atom. (1993;
University of Illinois Press; ISBN: 0-252-06773-8).
4. Laura McEnaney, Civil Defense Begins at Home (Princeton, 2000)
5. David Holloway, Stalin and the Bomb: The Soviet Union and Atomic Energy, 19391956 (Yale Univ. Press, 1996)
6. Spencer R. Weart, Nuclear Fear. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986).
7. Martin Sherwin, A World Destroyed: Hiroshima and the Origins of the Arms Race.
(New York: Vintage, 1987).
8. Paul Boyer, By the Bomb's Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn
of the Atomic Age. (Chapel Hill: University o North Carolina Press, 1994).
9. Gregg Herken, The Winning Weapon: The Atomic Bomb in the Cold War, 1945-50.
(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1980).
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA
WEB RESOURCES
The web can be a very useful source of information. It can also be a source for
information that is misleading or simply wrong. Therefore, you are welcome to use webbased resources in your written assignments with the following condition – web-based
materials and references you use MUST BE CITED with the appropriate URL. Five web
sites that I find to be useful AND reliable are listed below. If you are interested in others
but unsure of their objectivity, reliability etc., send me the URL and I’ll check them out.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Atomic Archive: URL = http://www.atomicarchive.com/
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: URL = http://www.thebulletin.org/
Nuclear Files: URL = http://www.nuclearfiles.org/
Guide to Nuclear Weapons: URL = http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/
Guide to Nuclear Topics: URL = http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datainx.asp
COURSE REQUIREMENTS AND EXPECTATIONS:
What I expect from you:
1. You will exhibit academic honesty – This includes not lifting materials from web site
without proper citation; I am especially aware of what exists on Wikipedia. Please
review UCSB’s student conduct guidelines if you have any questions about what
constitutes cheating or plagiarism: http://hep.ucsb.edu/people/hnn/conduct/disq.html.
Assignments found to contain plagiarized passages (i.e. you have included material
written by others without giving proper credit or citing the source) will be given an F
and you will be referred to the Dean for disciplinary action. I’m not kidding. These
matters receive a hearing from the Student-Faculty Committee on Student Conduct
where I will ask for the maximum penalty – either suspension or expulsion.
2. You will come to class and arrive on time.
3. You will keep up with the readings. See the note below on ‘Readings.’
4. You will complete all assignments and papers on time and take exams at scheduled
times. Please do no ask for make-up exams, etc. except in the case of a (documented
with writing) medical emergency or other reason deemed serious by the instructor.
Not taking the final will result in an automatic “F.”
5. You will visit me or the TA during office hours. Try to meet with me least once. This
is the best way for me to get to know you and address any questions you may have.
6. If you have a medical emergency or some other situation that requires you to be
absent for an extended period of time, you will inform me immediately and work out
an alternate arrangement.
7. You will observe proper email etiquette – I routinely provide information to students
and answer questions via email. This is part of our professional relationship. If you
are writing me, you will be courteous and professional in your communications.
Please do not use formatting and slang that you would not include in a professional
letter (for example, it is not appropriate to begin messages with “Hey Prof!”)
Messages written in a non-professional manner will naturally be ignored.
What To expect from me:
1. Lectures will be prepared in advance and organized.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA
2. I will make available on a weekly basis question sets designed to help you with
readings and historical IDs.
3. I will see that exams and papers are graded and returned as quickly as possible.
4. I will hold regular office hours.
5. Material in the class is sometimes of a controversial nature. I will do my best to be
impartial and identify views that are my own when presenting them.
READINGS: History courses involve a lot of reading – pay close attention to documents
you will be reading. Many texts need to be read slowly and maybe twice. History isn't
just about learning facts and dates. It’s also about understanding how and why things
happened. Don't get bogged down in all the facts and dates, at the expense of the big
picture. Ask yourself – what is the historical significance of this document? Why is this
important? How does it relate to other persons, places, and events? Your goal is not to
memorize facts but to develop an appreciation for the historical context being presented
here. Finally, doing history means offering interpretations of past events – this is what
historians do and is why history is so fascinating. Sometimes different historians will tell
different stories, come to different conclusions, or place emphasis on different evidence
or stories. This is what doing (and reading) history is about. Expect the story to be
complicated and not the neat and pretty stories presented on The History Channel. Don’t
be put off because there are inconsistencies. Instead, make note of these and ask yourself
how these came to be.
GRADING POLICY: Class attendance is meant to enhance participation, deepen
knowledge of the themes of the course, and identify problems in understanding the
information. Attendance is therefore required. Your grade for this course will be based on
the following:
Essay Assignment – 20%
Two in-class exams (multiple choice and/or historical ID (single/double)) – 20% each
Final Exam (cumulative, long-essay format) – 40%
WEEKLY DISCUSSION SECTION
There is an optional one hour weekly discussion section for History 105A, Fridays from
1-2 PM in Buchanan 1920 led by TA Jef Dinkler. This optional section is to assist you
in better understanding the required readings and helping prepare for assignments and
exams. Weekly discussion sections will focus on key topics in the readings and assist
students in connecting the readings to the lecture materials. Meetings will be primarily
lecture-based due to the variable number of students that may attend each week, but you
are encouraged to bring questions and concerns to section to facilitate discussion.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA
Course Outline
Number of Class Meetings in W-09 Quarter = 28
Lecture/Date
1; 1/5
2; 1/7
3; 1/9
Topics
Jan 19
7; 1/21
Course introduction
New Discoveries
Radiation, Scientists and the
Public Imagination
Fission!
The Manhattan Project Prologue
The Manhattan Project,
(1942-44)
NO CLASS
Life at Los Alamos
8; 1/23
Atomic Bomb Decision I
9; 1/26
Atomic Bomb Decision II
10; 1/28
11; 1/30
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Reactions to the New Atomic
Age
12; 2/2
13; 2/4
14; 2/6
First mini-midterm
Attempting to Control the
Bomb, 1945-50
Stalin’s Bomb
15; 2/9
Early Nuclear Strategy
16; 2/11
Race for the Super, Pt. I
17; 2/13
Feb. 16
18; 2/18
Race for the Super, Pt. II
NO CLASS
Espionage and Loyalty in the
Atomic Age
19; 2/20
20; 2/23
Civil Defense in U.S.
Life Under a Cloud: Atomic
Culture and the Nuclear
4; 1/12
5; 1/14
6; 1/16
Readings and Notes
Articles from reader are in italics
Badash, Ch. 1 & 2
CHW, Document 1; Weart’s “The
Physicist as Mad Scientist”
CHW, Document 2
Badash, Ch. 3
CHW, Docs. 3-5
CHW, Docs. 6 & &, 9 & 10
Life at Los Alamos Documents in
Class reader
Badash, Ch. 4
CHW, Docs.11-15
CHW, Docs. 16, 17, 18, 19
Walker’s “Recent Literature…A
Search for Middle Ground.”
CHW, Doc. 20, 21
Ogburn’s article “Sociology & the
Atom”;
John Hersey’s Hiroshima
Badash, Ch. 5;
CHW, Doc. 22-24
CHW, Doc. 27-28
Kojevnikov’s Ch. 6 from Stalin’s
Great Science book
Smoke, Ch. 1-4;
CHW, Doc. 45
Badash, Ch. 6 up to p. 97
CHW, Doc. 30-31
CHW, Doc. 32, 33, 34
Badash, rest of Ch. 6;
CHW, Docs. 35, 36, 37
Kaiser’s “Atomic Secret in Red
Hands”
CHW, Doc. 39
Winkler’s “The Atom and American
Life”;
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA BARBARA
20; 2/25
Family
The Peaceful Atom
22; 2/27
Second mini-midterm
23; 3/2
Nuclear strategy in the
Thermonuclear Era
Arms Control: Securing the
Limited Test Ban
24; 3/4
25; 3/6
26; 3/9
Nuclear Issues in the 1970s
and 1980s, Part I
Nuclear Issues in the 1970s
and 1980s, Part II
27; 3/11
Atomic Age 2.0:
New Nuclear Powers
28; 3/13
Legacy of the Atomic Age
FINAL EXAM: March 19, 8 to 11AM
May’s “Explosive Issues: Sex…”
Kay’s “Public Opinion and the Atom”
CHW, Docs. 25, 26, 65, 68
Smoke, Chs. 5-7;
CHW, Docs. 46, 47, 48
Smoke, Ch. 8
CHW, Docs. 41, 42
Start reading McPhee’s Curve of
Binding Energy (CBE)
Smoke, Ch. 11-15
CHW, Docs. 50, 51, 52, 60
CHW, Docs. 70, 71;
Westwick’s “Strategic Offense
Initiative”
Finish CBE
5 Page Essay Assignment Due
Lieber and Press’ “Rise of US
Nuclear Primacy;”
Broad and Sanger’s “Restraints Fray
and Risks Grow”
“4 Trillion Dollars and Counting”
article from December BAS;
Marc Trachtenberg’s “Bush Strategy
in Historical Perspective”
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
INTL 4470 Syllabus
Politics of Weapons Development and Proliferation
Spring 2006
Oasis Title: POL WEAPONS DEV.
Instructors:
Dr. Anupam Srivastava [ [email protected] ] and Dr. Seema Gahlaut [ [email protected] ]
Class meetings:
Tuesdays and Thursdays; 2:00 – 3:15 PM in Room 145 (Auditorium), Brooks Hall
Office hours: By appointment
Instructor contact information:
Center for International Trade and Security
Suite 120, Holmes-Hunter Academic Building
Main Tel: 542-2985 Fax: 542-2975
Course Summary:
This course provides an introduction to the issue of weapons development, proliferation, and
nonproliferation around the world. Part I will examine the basic technologies and motivations, and
impact of the development of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and ballistic missiles on
international security. Part II will discuss the various international strategies to counter weapons
proliferation – treaties, multilateral conventions and informal arrangements. Part III will examine the
challenges of weapons proliferation – such as domestic safety, regional stability and security, and
transnational terrorism. This will be done through national and regional case studies – where we will
discuss actual and potential US and international strategies/responses to each case.
Requirements:
1) First Exam (20%)
2) Research Paper (35%)
3) In-class Participation (10%)
4) Final Exam (35%)
Textbook:
Joseph Cirincione, Deadly Arsenals: Tracking Weapons of Mass Destruction. Washington, DC: Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, 2005.
Required Readings:
All of the required readings (not from Deadly Arsenals) are included in the course packet that can be
bought from Bel Jean Copy Center in downtown Athens.
Basic online resource: WMD 411 available at http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f_index.html
This is a comprehensive survey of WMD issues [glossary of terms, chronologies, and bibliography].
Other web resources for current events and analyses related to the course:
Arms Control Association
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
http://www.armscontrol.org
http://www.bullatomsci.org/
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Center for Defense Information
Center for International Trade and Security
Center for Strategic and International Studies
International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)
Nuclear Threat Initiative
Stimson Center
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI)
Terrorism Research Center
Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ceip.org/
http://www.cdi.org/
http://www.uga.edu/cits
http://www.csis.org/
http://www.iiss.org/scripts/index.asp
http://www.nti.org
http://www.stimson.org
http://www.sipri.se
http://www.terrorism.com
http://www.ucsusa.org/index.html
Official websites of international organizations
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
Chemical Weapons Convention
Missile Technology Control Regime
Australia Group
Nuclear Suppliers Group
Wassenaar Arrangement
http://www.iaea.org/worldatom/
www.opcw.org
www.mtcr.info/English/
www.australiagroup.net
www.nsg-online.org
www.wassenaar.org
Class calendar
Jan 10 & 12: Course introduction & Overview of Weapons Proliferation
Required Readings:
Deadly Arsenals chapter 1
“U.S. National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction,” White House, September 2002,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.pdf
Moodie, Michael, “Beyond Proliferation: The Challenge of Technology Diffusion,” The Washington
Quarterly, 18 (2) 1995
Recommended Readings:
National Research Council, Making the Nation Safer: The Role of Science and Technology for Countering
Terrorism, http://www.nap.edu/html/stct/
Jason Pate et al., “2000 WMD Terrorism Chronology: Incidents Involving Sub-National Actors and
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear Materials,”
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/reports/cbrn2k.htm
Counterproliferation Policy and Doctrine http://www.counterproliferation.org/policy/index.html
Jan 17, 19 & 24: Technology and development processes involved in WMDs
(Jan 17 nuclear, Jan 19 chem-bio, Jan 24 missile)
Required Readings:
Deadly Arsenals chapters 3, 4 and 5
Recommended Readings:
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Bomb Facts: How Nuclear Weapons are Made
http://www.wisconsinproject.org/pubs/articles/2001/bomb%20facts.htm
J. Holdren and M. Bunn, Technical Background: A Tutorial on Nuclear Weapons and NuclearExplosive Materials - Par One, The Nuclear Threat Initiative, November 2002
http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/technical.asp
The Henry L. Stimson Center, Chemical Weapons Proliferation Concerns, 2005
http://www.stimson.org/cbw/?SN=CB20011220137
Johnathan Tucker, “Biosecurity: Limiting Terrorist Access to Dangerous Pathogens,” United States
Institute of Peace, November 2003 http://www.usip.org/pubs/peaceworks/pwks52.pdf
Federation of American Scientists, “Ballistic Missile Basics”
http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/missile/basics.htm
Jan 26: Why do states acquire or give up WMDs?
Required Readings:
Scott D. Sagan, "Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?" International Security 21 (Winter 1996/97),
pp. 54-86.
Ariel A. Levite, “Never Say Never Again: Nuclear Reversal Revisited,” International Security (Winter
2002-2003), pp. 59-88
Recommended Readings:
William Potter, et. al., The Four Faces of Nuclear Terrorism (Monterey, CA: Center for Nonproliferation
Studies, 2004), chapters 1 and 2 http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/week/040618.htm
Jan 31: Proliferation of Conventional Weapons and Small Arms
Required Readings:
Khripunov, Igor, “Russia’s Weapons Trade: Domestic Competition and Foreign Markets,” Problems of
Post-Communism, 46:2 (March/April), 1999, pp. 39-48.
www.libs.uga.edu/ejournals/locators/acadsearchframe.html
“A Scourge of Small Arms,” Scientific American, June, 2000
www.libs.uga.edu/ejournals/locators.acadsearchframe.html
Recommended Readings:
Suzetter Grillot, “Small Arms Control in Central and Eastern Europe,” 2003 (can be accessed at
www.international-alert.org )
Feb 2 & 7: The Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime - I
(Feb 2 NPT & Feb 7 IAEA)
Feb 7 is also Midpoint withdrawal deadline
Required Readings:
Deadly Arsenals Appendix A
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Seema Gahlaut and Gary Bertsch, “The War on Terror and the Nonproliferation Regime,” Orbis,
Summer 2004, 489-504
Recommended Readings:
History of the NPT, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_12/Bunn.asp
IAEA Safeguards Overview: Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols,
http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/sg_overview.html
Feb 9 & 14: The Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime - II
(Feb 9 CTBT and FMCT; Feb 14 NSG)
Required Readings:
Deadly Arsenals Appendix E and D
George Bush, “Plan for limiting Nuclear Arms”, Speech at the National Defense University, Fort
McNair, Washington, 2004
Recommended Reading:
The Nuclear Testing Tally http://www.armscontrol.org/act/1998_05/ffmy98.asp
Background on FMCT, http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/fmct.html
NSG at a Glance http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/NSG.asp
Feb 16: First Exam (in class)
Feb 21, 23 & 28: The Chem-Bio Nonproliferation Regime
(Feb 21 BWC; Feb 23 CWC; and Feb 28 Australia Group)
Feb 23 is the LAST DAY to register your research paper topic with the instructor.
Required Readings:
Deadly Arsenals Appendix B and C
Mark Wheelis, “Biotechnology and Biochemical Weapons,” Nonproliferation Review 9 (Spring 2002)
Recommended Reading:
BWC at a Glance http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwcataglance.asp
CWC at a Glance http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cwcglance.asp
Office of Technology Assessment, “Technical Aspects of Biological Weapons Proliferation,”
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/ota/934405.pdf
OPCW, “Chemical Disarmament: Basic Facts,”
http://www.opcw.org/html/intro/chemdisarm_frameset.html
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Jean Paul Zanders, “The First Line of Defense Against Chemical and Biological Terrorism,” The
Monitor: International Perspectives on Nonproliferation, 8, 1 (Winter 2002), pp. 20-24
www.uga.edu/cits/publications/monitor.htm
Jonathan B. Tucker, “Preventing the Use of Pathogens: The Need for Global Biosecurity Standards,”
Arms Control Today, June 2003, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_06/tucker_june03.asp
Mar 2 & 7: Problems of Controlling Missile Proliferation
Required Readings:
Deadly Arsenals chapter 5
Dinshaw Mistry, “Beyond the MTCR: Building a Comprehensive Regime to Contain Ballistic Missile
Proliferation,” International Security 27 (Spring 2003) pp. 119-149
Recommended Reading:
Dennis M. Gormley, “The Neglected Dimension: Controlling Cruise Missile Proliferation,”
Nonproliferation Review 9 (Summer 2002) http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol09/92/92gorm.pdf
Mark Smith, “Stuck on the Launch Pad? The Ballistic Missile Code of Conduct Opens for Business,”
Disarmament Diplomacy, Dec 2002-Jan 2003 http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd68/68op01.htm
Rebecca Johnson, “PAROS discussions at the 2004 UN First Committee,” The Acronym Institute for
Disarmament Diplomacy, October 20, 2004 http://www.acronym.org.uk/un/2004paro.htm
Mar 9: Problems of Controlling Advanced Conventional Weapons & technologies
Required Readings:
William Kellar and Janne Nolan, “Mortgaging Security for Economic Gain: US Arms Policy in an
Insecure World,” International Studies Perspectives (2001) 2, pp. 177-93.
Malcolm Chalmers and Owen Greene, “The UN Register of Conventional Arms: A Progress Report,
Disarmament Diplomacy, Issue No. 35, March 1999.
Mar 14 & 16: Spring Break week
Mar 21, 23 & 28: Case Studies of P-5
(Mar 21 US and Russia; Mar 23 UK/Fr and Mar 28 China )
Mar 28, 5 pm is the deadline for submitting research papers.
Required Readings:
Deadly Arsenals chapter 6 and 10
Deadly Arsenals chapter 7, 8 and 9
Anupam Srivastava, “China's Export Controls: Can Beijing's Actions Match Its Words?”
Arms Control Today, November 2005.
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Recommended Reading:
Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat.asp
UK profile: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/UK/index.html
France profile: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/France/index.html
China profile: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/China/index.html
Matthew Bunn et al., Controlling Nuclear Warheads and Materials: A Report Card and Action Plan
(Washington, DC: Nuclear Threat Initiative and the Project on Managing the Atom, Harvard
University, March 2003), Issue summary http://www.nti.org/e_research/cnwm/overview/issue.asp
Jonathan B. Tucker, “Biological Weapons in the Former Soviet Union: An Interview With Dr.
Kenneth Alibek, Nonproliferation Review 6 (Spring-Summer 1999)
http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol06/63/alibek63.pdf
Mar 30 & Apr 4: Case Studies of n-renunciation: Germany & Japan
Required Readings:
Ernst Urich von Weizsäcker, “German Nuclear Policy,” NPEC, 25 Feb 2005
http://www.npec-web.org/Frameset.asp?PageType=Syllabi
“Nuclear Japan: Oxymoron or Coming Soon?” The Washington Quarterly, Winter, 2003.
Recommended Reading:
Germany profile: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Germany/index.html
Japan profile: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Japan/index.html
Apr 6: Case Studies of de-nuclearization: Brazil-Argentina & South Africa
Required Readings:
Deadly Arsenals chapters 19, 20, and 21
Recommended Reading:
Argentina profile: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Argentina/
Brazil profile: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Brazil/index.html
“Lula’s Nukes,” http://www.counterpunch.org/schaffer03192005.html
Apr 11 & 13: Case Study: the Middle East (Israel, Iran, others)
Required Readings:
Deadly Arsenals chapters 13, 15 and 16
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Zeev Maoz, “The Mixed Blessing of Israel’s Nuclear Policy,” International Security 28 (Fall 2003), pp.
44-77.
S. Chubin and R.S. Litwak, “Debating Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions,” The Washington Quarterly, 2003.
Recommended Reading:
Isreal profile: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Israel/index.html
Iran profile: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Iran/index.html
Libya profile: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Libya/index.html
Chronology of Iran crisis at http://www.armscontrol.org/country/iran/iranchronology.asp
Avner Cohen, “Israel and Chemical/Biological Weapons: History, Deterrence, and Arms Control,”
Nonproliferation Review 8 (Fall-Winter 2001) http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol08/83/83cohen.pdf
“Will Saudi Arabia Acquire Nuclear Weapons?” http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_40a.html
Apr 19 & 20: Case Study: South Asia (India, Pakistan)
Required Readings:
Deadly Arsenals chapters 11 and 12
Seema Gahlaut, “India and the Nonproliferation Regime,” in Subrata Mitra and Gary K. Bertsch, ed.,
The New Dynamism in India [Germany: Hanns Siedel Foundation; December 2005] forthcoming.
Sharon Squassoni, “Closing Pandora's Box: Pakistan's Role in Nuclear Proliferation,” Arms Control
Today, April 2004.
Recommended Reading:
India profile: http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_66a.html
Pakistan profile: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Pakistan/index.html
Leonard Weiss, “Pakistan: It’s Déjà vu All over Again,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
Anupam Srivastava and Seema Gahlaut, “Curbing Proliferation from Emerging Suppliers” Arms
Control Today, 33:7, September 2003, pp. 12-16
Raju G. C. Thomas, “Nuclear Weaponization in South Asia: Did the US Nonproliferation Policy
Make Any Difference?” http://www.npec-web.org/Frameset.asp?PageType=Syllabi
Apr 25: Case Study: North Korea
Required Readings:
Deadly Arsenals chapter 14
Daniel A. Pinkston, “Domestic Politics and Stakeholders in the North Korean Missile Development
Program, Nonproliferation Review 10 (Summer 2003)
UNIVERSITY OF GEORGIA
Recommended Reading:
North Korea Profile: http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/NK/index.html
Chronology of U.S.-North Korean Nuclear and Missile Diplomacy at
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/dprkchron.asp
AGREED FRAMEWORK BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE
DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF KOREA, Geneva, October 21, 1994,
http://www.armscontrol.org/documents/af.asp
Apr 27: Summing up
Last day of class
Required Readings:
Henry Sokolski, “What Does the History of the NPT Tell us About Its Future,”
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/fp/b19ch1.htm
Tom Sauer, “A New Nuclear Order,” Strategic Insights, May 2004.
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2004/may/sauerMay04.pdf
Wed May 3 – Tue May 9
Final exam week
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
HSSC 311
HSOC 312
Weapons of Mass Destruction
Spring 2008
Tuesday 1:30-4:30
Graduate Education Building 007
Professor Lindee
[email protected]
[email protected]
215 898 2271
Office: 364 Logan Hall
Office hours Tuesday 11-1 and by appointment.
In this research seminar, every student will undertake an independent research project.
The course is structured around the research process, and my goal is to help each student
produce a paper that can be published in some venue.
Our general questions will focus on the history of the technical development, use, and
political and cultural interpretation of those weapons conventionally identified as
weapons of mass destruction, that is, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. We are
interested in why these particular forms of military destruction have been understood to
raise novel problems of national management, public investment, scientific responsibility,
international law and ethics. We consider the weapons systems as a global phenomenon
with global effects, and we interpret them as not only material and technical objects, but
also as symbolic systems that acquire meaning in a wide range of settings, from
government reports, to scientific papers, to the images and texts of popular culture.
WMD, as defined here, are entirely the result of scientific research in the industrialized
world. Some forms of biological and chemical warfare are very old—bodies infected
with plague and other diseases were catapulted into besieged cities from about 1300 on.
But modern WMD are produced as a result of laboratory research, by persons with
formal training in the scientific method, and with funding from national military
establishments. They are profound intellectual achievements, reflecting the specialized
techniques of modern science, an enterprise commonly understood to exemplify all that is
most rational and most beneficent in human intellectual life. They have also been
interpreted, from many different perspectives, as unusually brutal, and almost primitive.
It is the fusion of reason and brutality, and of rationality and violence, as it plays out in
the history of weapons of mass destruction, that will interest us this semester.
For grades:
The research paper is the most important factor in your final grade. But you won’t do
well in the class if you do not participate in every class in our discussions, and actively
join in our efforts to understand the historical problems raised.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
All students will write a research paper, of about 20 pages (text), with an additional 6 to
8 page bibliography, based on original research with primary sources. Deadlines for
each phase of this project are noted in the syllabus, and you will be graded for every
phase. Expect to devote at least 5 to 7 hours per week to this independent project, every
week, all semester.
All classes will be organized as follows: For the first 2 hours we will focus on the
readings or the assigned problem. We will then take a brief break (10-15 minutes) and
return to discuss a research issue of some kind.
In the course of the semester, each student will lead the discussion of a single reading or
source in the course of the semester. Leading a discussion will involve presenting a brief
(3-minute) summary of the content of the reading, followed by raising a few questions to
which other students can respond. Generally, expect to be responsible for about 20
minutes of class time.
Buy or get from library these books:
Ibuse Masuji Black Rain originally 1969. Translated by John Bester, Tokyo:Kodansha
International, any edition.
Guillemin, Jeanne 2005 Biological Weapons: From the invention of state-sponsored
programs to contemporary bioterrorism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Alibek, Ken 1999 Biohazard: The chilling true story. New York: Random House.
Richard Price 1997 The Chemical Weapons Taboo Ithaca: Cornell.
Stephen I. Schwartz, ed., Atomic Audit: The costs and consequences of U.S. Nuclear
Weapons since 1940.
Reading packet is at Campus Copy Center.
Week 1 Frames
January 22
Discuss syllabus, organization of course, plans for the semester.
Come to first class with a working definition of “mass destruction.” Look up definitions
online, or in printed sources; think about why both biological weapons (which have not
yet been particularly effective in any military engagement) and nuclear weapons (which
could destroy the planet) are seen as similar. What do they have in common? What
makes them “weapons of mass destruction”? Think about when this term emerged
(check the OED) and how has it been used. Is WMD a neutral, apolitical term? If not,
what are its politics?
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Read online:
Eliot Weinberger, “What I heard about Iraq.”
Pay attention to how the idea of weapons of mass destruction worked in public
discussions of the Iraq war.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v27/n03/print/wein01_.html
Also read the FBI advice page, for what you as a citizen can do about WMD:
http://www.fbi.gov/page2/april07/wmd041107.html
Week 2 The state’s monopoly on violence
January 29
Some theoretical perspectives
Read online the sociologist Max Weber’s 1919 lecture in which he outlines the ways that
the state depends on violence, and holds a monopoly on violence, Politics as a Vocation:
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/lecture/politics_vocation.html
This is tough going at times; try to stick it out.
In EBSCO Megahost in Library (search EBSCO to get to the PDF):
Charles Thorpe. 2004. Violence and the scientific vocation. Theory, culture and
society. 21(3):59-84.
In reading packet:
* Scarry, Elaine 1985. The Body in Pain: The making and unmaking of the world. New
York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 61-156.
* Carol Cohn. 1993 Wars wimps and women: Talking gender and thinking war. In
Miriam Cooke and Angela Woollacott, eds. Gendering War Talk Princeton: Princeton
University Press. 227-157.
Discussion after class break: Identifying a possible research problem. What kinds of
questions can you ask? How to develop a problem.
Week 3 Chemical Weapons
February 5
Price, Chemical Weapons Taboo. Read entire book.
Also look at:
1993 OTA report on chemical weapons:
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/ota/934404.pdf
And, the Chemical Weapons Convention:
http://www.cwc.gov/
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html
Some primary sources you can track down, for optional reading, relevant to those
interested in doing a project on chemical weapons:
* JBS Haldane 1926. Callinicus: A Defense of Chemical Warfare. New York, NY: EP
Dutton; 1926. 84 pp..
* Time Magazine, 18 May 1925. “Gasology”
* Hearing, 93rd Congress, Second Session, Before the Committee on Foreign Relations.
10 December 1974, on Ex. J. Protocol for the prohibition of chemical weapons, Ex. Q,
92-2 Convention on the prohibition of biological weapons and S. Res. 48 relating to a
comprehensive interpretation of the Geneva Protocol. Pp. 1-71.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
* Demetrius Evison, David Hinsley and Paul Rice. 2002. Chemical weapons. British
Medical Journal 9 February, 321:332-335.
Discussion after class break: Finding archival and other resources, using the internet,
using the library, using the Congressional Record, carrying out interviews.
Week 4 Biological weapons
February 12
By this week, you must have identified an area of interest for your research project. It
can be somewhat vague, eg “chemical weapons” or “Iran.” Or is can be very specific.
But you should be able to say why it interests you, and what kind of questions you want
to ask about it. Turn in a one-page description of your interest.
Guillemin, Biological Weapons. Read pp. 1-111.
Alibek Biohazard. Read entire book.
Federation of American Scientists and “dual-use” research:
http://fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=150
The CDC and emerging infectious disease:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol5no4/kortepeter.htm
Discussion after class break: How to write.
Week 5 Actual mass destruction: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
February 19
By this week, turn in a bibliography listing at least ten sources relevant to your
research interests. These can be primary or secondary sources. You do not have to
have read them all, but you should have looked at some of them.
Masuji Black Rain Read entire book.
In reading packet:
Lindee Suffering Made Real, pp. 117-165.
Discussion after class break: Questions of overload: too much data, too many questions.
How to narrow a project into a practical research plan. Moving from “What is the
meaning of the universe” to “how did this policy become acceptable.”
Week 6 How to tell technical and social stories about WMD
February 26
In reading packet:
Lindee, M.S. The Repatriation of Atomic Bomb Victim Body Parts. Osiris,
Mackenzie, Donald. 2000. Inventing Accuracy: A historical sociology of nuclear missile
guidance. Cambridge: MIT Press. Pp. 27-94.
Lynn Eden Whole World On Fire, pp. 221-252.
Luise White. 2004. Poisoned food, poisoned uniforms, and anthrax: Or, how guerrillas
die in war. Osiris 19:220-233
Laura A. Bruno. 2003. The bequest of the nuclear battlefield: Science, nature and the
atom during the first decade of the Cold War. Historical Studies in the Physical and
Biological Sciences. 33:2, 237-259.
Discussion after class break: Practical questions: Publishing venues for undergraduates.
Also, research $$.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Week 7 NO CLASS-- MEET WITH PROFESSOR
March 4
I will be meeting all day with individual students for one-half hour sessions to discuss
research plans. You must bring to our meeting a four-to-six page proposal for your
project, with a bibliography listing at least 20 sources. In this proposal, answer the
following questions: What time period will I focus on? What institutions? Which
people? What question do I want to answer? What kinds of sources will actually permit
me to answer that question? What do I know about what other scholars have already
written about the issues I will be exploring? Why are the questions that interest me
important?
Week 8
March 11 NO CLASS SPRING BREAK
Work on your projects!!
Week 9 Discuss Research Projects
March 18
Discussion of research projects. Be prepared to present your project to the class.
Bring questions to the group about your research, how to carry it out, how to think
about it. Bring a power point if you have it; bring charts; consider this a “work-inprogress” presentation to the group. At the end of this class, turn in a 10-15 page
draft/outline/prospectus of your project, with a detailed bibliography, expanded
proposal, and a description of methods.
Week 10 The Nuclear Club
March 25
Schwartz, Stephen I. ed., Atomic Audit: The costs and consequences of U.S. Nuclear
Weapons since 1940. Read at least four chapters. Skim entire book. Come to class
prepared to discuss this project and its implications.
NY Times story:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/world/asia/15nuke.html
Assignment: Choose a country and do basic research online to find out when and how it
“went nuclear.” Turn in a short (1 page or more) description of what you found and be
prepared to describe what you found to the rest of the class. Think about: Who supported
this new nuclear state? Who tried to stop it? Where did the expertise to make nuclear
weapons come from? What has the international response to the nuclear status of this
nation been? In the club: US, USSR/Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, (Israel?),
North Korea, (Iraq?) Iran? and (formerly) South Africa.
Discussion after break: Bias, neutrality, politics. Doing research on difficult subjects,
subjectivity, situated knowledge, nationalism, interests, etc.
Also: WORK ON YOUR RESEARCH PROJECTS
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
Week 11 Pizza and Mass Destruction at the Movies
April 1 NO CLASS: Instead: movie night Friday, April 4,
at professor’s home in W. Mt. Airy
6 p.m. Friday April 4.
We will order pizza and watch movies. We will be looking at and discussing key scenes
depicting science, technology and mass destruction, in a variety of movies such as Dr.
Strangelove, On the Beach, The Day After, Wargames, maybe also in 24? (chemical
weapons) In other television shows? Suggestions welcome as professor rarely watches
TV shows or even movies about terrorism.
Also this week: WORK ON YOUR RESEARCH PROJECTS
Week 12 Iraq, WMDs, Terror
April 8
National Commission on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. 2003. The 9/11
Commission Report New York: Norton. This is online at
http://www.9-11commission.gov/ Look at it, read as much as you can.
Garwin, Richard 2001 The Many Threats of Terror New York Review of Books 48:17,
November 1. pp. 237-256. Online at:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14661
For class discussion: peruse “War on Terror” on sites like You Tube and its kin. How is
the internet implicated in “terror”? How does “terror” look on the internet? What
weapons exactly are most important in this war? What role do WMDs play?
Also:
Troll the SIPRI website: http://www.sipri.org/
CNN.com reports about calling off the search for WMDs, January 2005.
Look at/read/skim the following:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Politics/documents/2002/09/24/dossier.pdf.
http://www.wmd.gov/report/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html
Come to class with an explanation of why the United States invaded Iraq.
Also: WORK ON YOUR RESEARCH PROJECTS
Week 13 NO CLASS
April 15
WORK ON YOUR RESEARCH PROJECTS
Week 14
April 22
Formal presentations of research in class.
Week 15
April 29
Formal presentations of research in class.
WELLESLEY COLLEGE
EXP 105 “The Nuclear Challenge”
Fall 2009
Classes meet Wednesday, 2:15-4:45
Room 104 SC
Nancy H. Kolodny
Office: S258
Research Lab: L225
Telephone: x3044
e-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://www.wellesley.edu/Chemistry/kolodnyn.html
Office Hours:
Tuesday
1:30-3:00 P.M.
Monday, Thursday 9:00-11:00 A.M.
or by appointment
FirstClass Conference: EXP105-01-F09
Since the discovery of nuclear fission in the 1930s, the potential of nuclear energy
both for war and for peace has presented an ongoing challenge to humanity. Daily
newspaper accounts of developments in Iran and North Korea and of the need for
sources of energy other than fossil fuels highlight the importance of understanding the
potential of the nucleus. This course will examine the development of nuclear
weapons and the treaties limiting them, as well as the ongoing danger of nuclear
terrorism. It will also examine peaceful uses of nuclear energy for the generation of
electricity and for medical diagnosis and treatment, as well as the waste disposal
problems that result from these uses. Course materials will include primary and
secondary historical documents, literature, music and films.
“The Nuclear Challenge” will meet once a week for 150 minutes. There will be a 10
minute break in the middle of the class period. Classes will be in a discussion format.
Guest lecturers from the Wellesley faculty and beyond will share their expertise on
such topics as the historical background leading to the development of nuclear
weapons, nuclear weapons as seen through drama and music, nuclear disarmament
treaties, and electricity production. We will visit the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station.
Assignments will include two or three short papers during the semester and a final
paper/presentation. Quizzes may be given to encourage mastery of factual material.
Tentative Outline:
I.
Introduction
II.
The science of the nucleus: radioactivity, nuclear fission and fusion
III.
Setting the stage: Europe and Asia between World Wars I and II
IV.
The Manhattan Project; the development and use of nuclear weapons by
the U.S. in Japan
V.
The Arts and nuclear weapons: “Copenhagen” and “Doctor Atomic”
VI.
Post-WW II atomic weapons development and controversy
VII. Nuclear non-proliferation treaties
VIII. Peaceful uses of nuclear energy: generation of electricity; nuclear medicine
IX.
Nuclear waste disposal
X.
Nuclear terrorism
WELLESLEY COLLEGE
Your grade in EXP 105 will depend on:
Papers and Quizzes
40%
Class participation
20%
Final project/presentation 40%
Course Resources
Books we will read extensively:
1. In bookstore as paperback version: Megawatts and Megatons: The Future of
Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons/ Richard L. Garwin and Georges
Charpak, Chicago, IL, The University of Chicago Press, 2001, 2002.
Also available as electronic resource: Megawatts and megatons [electronic resource]:
a turning point in the nuclear age? / Richard L. Garwin & Georges Charpak.
2. In bookstore as paperback version: Copenhagen, Michael Frayn, New York,
New York, Anchor Books, 2000.
Also available on reserve PR6056.R3 C64 2000
3. Photocopy of out-of-print book [distributed in class]: Harry S. Truman and the
Bomb: A Documentary History/ Robert H. Ferrell, Ed., Worland, WY, High
Plains Publishing Co., 1996.
4. In bookstore as paperback version: Best of intentions: America’s campaign
against strategic weapons proliferation, Henry D. Sokolski, Westport, Conn.,
Praeger, 2001.
Also available on reserve JZ5675 .S66 2001
5. In bookstore: TMI 25 Years Later, Bonnie A. Osif, Anthony J. Baratta,
Thomas W. Conkling, University Park, PA, The Pennsylvania State University
Press, 2004.
Also available on reserve TK1345.H37 O85 2004
6. In bookstore: The Nuclear Express, Thomas C. Reed and Danny B. Stillman,
Minneapolis, MN , Zenith Press (an imprint of MBI Publishing Company,) 2009.
Other books and journals from which we will read chapters and articles are on
e-reserve on our course conference.
Research Resources:
Ms. Betty Febo of the Clapp Library has prepared an extensive Research
Resource page that includes documents, websites, etc. It may be accessed through
the Library home page, Research Resources by Subject, Library instruction class
guide, EXP 105 or http://www.wellesley.edu/Library/Research/Classes/exp105.html
WELLESLEY COLLEGE
Revised Syllabus (10/2/09)
Class
1
Date
9/9
2
9/16
3
9/23
4
9/30
5
10/7
6
10/14
10/18
7
10/21
8
10/28
9
10
11/4
11/11
11
12
13
11/18
11/25
12/2
12/9
Topic
Introduction
“Nukes in the News”
Science of the nucleus
Asia in the 1930’s and 40’s
Guest: Professor Y. Tak Matsusaka
Europe in the 1930’s and 40’s
Guest: Professor Quinn Slobodian
The Manhattan Project: Nuclear weapons development
“The Day After Trinity”
The Arts and nuclear weapons: “Copenhagen” and “Doctor
Atomic”
Guest: Professor Nora Hussey (“Copenhagen”)
Debate on President Truman’s Decision
Nuclear proliferation/Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaties
Guest: Professor Robert Paarlberg
Monday Schedule – no class
Make-up class (for pre-Thanksgiving cancellation): “Doctor
Atomic” Guest: Professor Rebecca Cypess, New England
Conservatory of Music
Nuclear energy: science/technology/politics/economics
Development of student survey on nuclear issues
Introduction to research resources
Guest: Ms Betty Febo
Electricity Generation & Distribution in U.S.
Guest: Mr. Jeremy Newberger, National Grid
Visit to Seabrook Nuclear Power Station
Three Mile Island (TMI), Chernobyl and beyond
Discussion of results of student survey on nuclear issues
Nuclear Medicine; Nuclear Waste Disposal; Nuclear Terrorism
No class (rescheduled above)
Student presentations: Global nuclear energy
Student presentations: Global nuclear energy