The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
It may interest the list to know that just published is a special issue of The Journal of Strategic Studies , vol. 23, no. 1 (March 2000) which I edited under the title 'Preventing the Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction'. It has also been published in book form under the same title by Frank Cass. ISBN 0 7146 5044 7 hardback (£39.50/$57.50). ISBN 0 7146 8097 4 paperback (£16.50/$24.50). See www.frankcass.com Some of the articles/chapters relevant to the list are the following: * Carolyn James 'Iran and Iraq as Rational Crisis Actors: Dangers and Dynamics of Survivable Nuclear War' Focusing specifically on Iran and Iraq, Carolyn James considers the implications should they acquire 'mini-arsenals', namely, nuclear arsenals big enough to inflict a great deal of damage but too small to ensure the destruction of the opponent’s state or society. She sees mini-arsenals as being associated with the following hierarchy of preferences: unilateral use without nuclear retaliation from the enemy, then mutual nuclear use, then mutual nuclear restraint and then unilateral use by the enemy without nuclear response. In contrast, she sees Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as associated with a less dangerous hierarchy of preferences: mutual nuclear restraint, then unilateral use without nuclear retaliation from the enemy, then unilateral use by the enemy without nuclear response and then mutual nuclear use. Instead, of hyping the threat posed by Iran and Iraq by labelling them 'rogue states', she argues that the West should treat them as rational actors. A controversial option she considers is that, if they acquire nuclear weapons, the West should assist them to move beyond the mini-arsenal stage as quickly as possible to reach a capability for MAD. However, she prefers to advocate conventional strength, regional alliances and alternate energy options as policies aimed at reordering their preferences to safer ones. * John Mueller and Karl Mueller 'The Methodology of Mass Destruction' The labelling of chemical and biological weapons and related delivery systems as WMD is seen by John Mueller and Karl Mueller as something to be avoided because it is very difficult to actually inflict mass destruction with them. They prefer to restrict the label WMD to nuclear weapons and point out that little attention is paid to the mass destruction inflicted by economic sanctions. When economic sanctions do inflict mass destruction, they prefer the term 'economic warfare'. They argue that Western decision-makers are excessively worried about the threat posed by terrorists and rogue states, and that this is true even of fears about the dangers of such actors acquiring a small nuclear arsenal. Western decision-makers, they maintain, should rely on low-key measures to control the scale of terrorism and on deterrence and containment rather than economic warfare to deal with rogue states. They also argue that the limited threat posed by terrorists and rogue states has declined considerably with the end of the Cold War because they have lost their principal backer, the Soviet Union. * Eric Herring 'Rogue Rage: Can We Prevent Mass Destruction?' The labelling of some states as 'rogue states', supposedly the most worrying kind of state when it comes to the potential for WMD use, is assessed sceptically by Eric Herring. He critiques three social science perspectives on the label 'rogue state': it is appropriate for the very serious threats to the West which exist (the conservative perspective); it exaggerates the threats to the West from certain states (the liberal perspective); and it exaggerates the threats to the West and is applicable also or even primarily to the United States and some of its allies (the perspective of the left). He points out that those writing from the conservative and liberal perspectives simply ignore the left. Ironically, he finds the left's position to be the most persuasive of the three. However, he also argues that one's position on this issue is driven less by the facts than by one's own values and identity underlie one's construction and interpretation of the facts (the interpretivist perspective). He concludes by proposing the development of 'radical security studies', not only as an approach to the issue of rogue states but as an approach to the study of security generally. Radical security studies aims to engage seriously with the left as well as more mainstream perspectives, while trying to integrate social science and intepretivism. ---------------------- Dr. Eric Herring Department of Politics University of Bristol 10 Priory Road Bristol BS8 1TU England, UK Tel. +44-(0)117-928-8582 Fax +44-(0)117-973-2133 http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Politics eric.herring@bristol.ac.uk -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is a discussion list run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq For removal from list, email soc-casi-discuss-request@lists.cam.ac.uk Full details of CASI's various lists can be found on the CASI website: http://welcome.to/casi