7sswm021current issues in science and security …...2012/10/07 · 7sswm021current issues in...

Department of War Studies, King’s College London

1

7SSWM021Current Issues in Science and Security 2012-2013 Module Organiser:

Prof Wyn Bowen Office Hours: Please see Departmental webpage Contact Details: Strand Bridge House (Floor –2)

Phone: 020-7848-2942 E-mail: [email protected]

Contributing Lecturers: Dr Chris Hobbs

Office Hours: Please see Departmental webpage Contact Details: Strand Bridge House (Floor -2)


Dr Susan Martin Office Hours: Please see Departmental webpage Contact Details: Office: LG 17, Strand Bridge House (Floor –1)


This module is one of the core elements of the MA in Science and Security and it is also available as an options module to students on other MA programmes in the Department of War Studies. The purpose is to examine a variety of issues in international politics where scientific and technological issues intersect with security concerns. The focus is on several issues of direct relevance to the current and evolving international security agenda: ballistic and cruise missiles; space security and ballistic missile defence; cyber security; climate change; verification of arms control and disarmament agreements; unmanned combat air vehicles; and ‗intangible‘ aspects of security. For each topic the aim is to develop knowledge and understanding of the science and technology involved, to examine relevant social science theories and concepts, and then to use these tools to analyse the policy issues involved with a focus on the interaction of science, technology and politics. AIMS The aims of the module are to:

- familiarise students with the basic science underlying important contemporary issues in international politics

- develop a systematic understanding of the relevant concepts and theories from Security Studies, and encourage a critical awareness of the theoretical and empirical debates surrounding them

- promote the capacity for critical evaluation, independent judgment and communication at a level commensurate with taught postgraduate study

- foster the skills required for critical analysis of the implications of scientific and technological developments on security

- provide a framework for original analysis of the historical and contemporary role of scientific developments in shaping security problems

LEARNING OUTCOMES By the end of the module, students will have:


2

- a basic understanding of the science underlying contemporary issues in international politics

- the ability to analyse critically technical claims made in the field of international security an ability to provide politically-informed technical analysis in the field of science and security

- critically engaged with key concepts and theories used in security studies, and applied those concepts and theories to an analysis of current and historical security issues

- carried out original, critical analysis of the impact of scientific and technological developments on security, using knowledge of the science involved and tools drawn from IR theory and security studies

- practised a range of intellectual, practical and transferable skills, through participation in classes and through the preparation and submission of course work

MODULE REQUIREMENTS Students are required to attend all lectures and seminars. All students are expected to be prepared to contribute substantively to discussion each week. Students may also be given supplemental assignments designed to encourage critical engagement with the readings and to increase the productivity of class sessions. These will usually be posted in the relevant week‘s section on the e-learning platform. In addition,

All essays must conform to the ‗Instructions on the Presentation of Essays‘ on the Department‘s internal web pages. See: https://internal.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/stu/ws/handbook/assessment/coursework/essaypres.aspx

Students must read the information plagiarism very closely Plagiarism (cheating) is a very serious offence and may result in referral to the Misconduct Committee. Please come to see the module convenor if you have any concerns or doubts. See

https://internal.kcl.ac.uk/sspp/stu/ws/handbook/assessment/coursework/plagiarism.aspx

Students should note that attendance at seminars, tutorials etc. is mandatory and that all deadlines are absolute. A failure to submit work by the appropriate dates will result in a mark of 0. Word limits are fixed and over-length work may result in penalties being applied. Students should be reminded that a copy of the comments sheet and mark for all formatively assessed essays is copied and added to the student files. A failure to submit all required assessed work or to meet other module obligations, such as making presentations, may be regarded as lack of due industry and may result in failure to progress, in accordance with the sections on submission of work, attendance, and student progress on the Department‘s internal we pages.

All writing assignments must be submitted through the e-learning platform; hard copies must also be given to the module convenor.

ASSESSMENT The module is assessed by both an essay and an examination. Seventy-five percent (75%) is based on a 3,000 word essay. In this essay students should apply the knowledge and tools they have gained from the module to a case study in science and security not covered in class during the term. All students need to decide on their essay topic and have it approved by Prof Bowen by no later than 1 February 2013 (the end of week three of the module). This can be done via email or in person. In the essay, students will integrate their analysis of the scientific and technical issues with an analysis of the security and policy issues relevant to the case study chosen. This essay provides an opportunity for critical engagement with policy issues and allows students to demonstrate their capacity for critical reflection and in-depth analysis; as such it will develop the skills students need for the dissertation. Essays are due on Thursday 28 March 2012; they should be submitted through the e-learning platform and hard copies must also be left in Prof Bowen‘s pigeon hole. Potential essay topics might include:

The H-Bomb—e.g. If a weapon is scientifically possible, must we develop it?


3

The Revolution in Military Affairs—e.g. Technology versus skills as determinants of military success

Dreadnoughts—e.g. Arms races and technological competition

New Generation Nuclear Weapons—e.g. Technical versus political motivations; If a weapon is scientifically possible, must we develop it? Would new bunker busting nuclear weapons be effective in destroying deeply buried hardened targets?

Biotechnology: e.g. Dilemmas of dual-use and defensive research (tension between scientific freedom and advancement and possible negative uses of science, costs and benefits of trying to limit negative uses; tensions involved in ‗defensive‘ research)

The development of air power theory and doctrine: Technological determinism or multicausality?

Intelligence and proliferation: the challenge of accurately assessing capabilities and intentions

Deterrence—e.g. political versus technological requirements

The Future of the United Kingdom‘s Nuclear Deterrent –e.g. Should it have one? Is a submarine based system the most cost effective form of deterrent for the UK?

Formative assessment includes an optional one-page essay outline, so that students can receive practical and constructive feedback on their work before the summative assessment is due. Such outlines should be turned in to Prof Bowen by email by 12pm on Friday 1 March 2012 at the latest. Twenty-five percent (25%) is based on a two-hour unseen examination paper, given during the exam period. Students will have a choice of one out of four questions. The exam allows students to demonstrate their understanding of the scientific and technical issues. TEACHING ARRANGEMENTS Teaching will be done through a combination of lecture and seminar-based sessions, each lasting two hours. The success of the course will depend largely on student preparation and involvement in class discussion. Over the course of the term supplemental assignments and small group discussions will be utilised to augment the productivity of class sessions. Careers & Employability Session Using an example of a fictional student enrolled on this programme, this session will explore ways

that students can find career inspiration. The focus will be practical strategies that students can take

away and use in their own time to decide what their career focus is out of the array of career options

available as well as giving specific information and resources relevant to the main destinations from

this war studies postgraduate course. It will be a highly interactive session with students engaged in

personal and group reflection upon some key questions that are relevant to all students regardless of

the amount of career planning they have already done or level of prior work experience they have.

MA Science & Security: Wednesday 13 Feb, 2.15pm

Reading The reading load for this module is quite heavy—on average about 150 pages per week. For each week you will have a list of required readings for lecture and for seminar. The background of students taking this module varies enormously—some will have great familiarity with the science, some will have great familiarity with international relations, and some will be new to both. The main readings listed for each class session are those that we will focus on in lecture and discussion. Students with little or no


4

background will want to supplement those readings with material from one of the recommended textbooks or other introductory material; students with a strong background in the week‘s topic should supplement the main readings with some of the more advanced readings listed under ‗Further readings‘. Books that can provide background and introduction to security studies and international relations: Baylis, John and Steve Smith, eds. The Globalization of World Politics 3rd edition. Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2006. Buzan, Barry and Lene Hansen. The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2009. Dunne, Tim, Milja Kurki and Steve Smith, eds. International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity.

Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Hough, Peter. Understanding Global Security 2nd edition. London: Routledge, 2008. Kegley, Charles W. World Politics: Trend and Transformation. 12th edition. Belmont, CA: Cengage

learning, 2009. Mahnken, Thomas G. and Joseph A Maiolo, eds. Strategic Studies: A Reader. London: Routledge,

2008. Sterling-Folker, Jennifer, ed. Making Sense of International Relations Theory. Boulder, CO: Lynne-Rienner

2006. Books that can provide background on basic methods/writing: Gerring. John. Social Science Methodology. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press, 2012 Brady, Henry E. & David Collier (Eds.). (2004). Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared

Standards. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield. George, Alexander L. and Andrew Bennett. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences.

Cambridge, Mass., : The MIT Press, 2005. King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba (1994). Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton

University Press. Van Evera, Stephen (1997). Guide to Methods for Students of Political Science Cornell University Press. Useful handouts on writing from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill:

http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/ LECTURE AND SEMINAR TOPICS 1. Introduction, Key Concepts and Approaches, and the Definition of Security (WB), 17 Jan 2. The Science of Ballistic and Cruise (DS), 24 Jan 3. The Science of Space Security (CH), 31 Jan 4. Offensive and Defensive Arms Races: BMD and Space Weapons (WB), 7 Feb 5. Cyber Security: Threats, Challenges and Legal Implications (CH/EK), 14 Feb 6. Cyber Security: Politics, Policy and Strategy (TS), 21 Feb 7. Science, Politics, Security and Policy: Case Study of Climate Change (SM), 28 Feb 8. Science and Verification (CH), 7 Mar 9. Technology, Military Utility and Legality: Case Study of Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles

(UCAVs): (WB), 14 Mar 10. Security Challenges Posed by Intangibles (e.g. Knowledge, Information, Security Culture) (CH,

JR, WB), 21 Mar READING LIST 1. Introduction, Key Concepts and Approaches, and the Definition of Security


5

What are the key issues, concepts and approaches used in security studies? How might we use these to better understand issues at the nexus of science and security? What, in particular, do we mean by ‘security’? Please see the assignment (‘Defining Security’) that was emailed to you before the first class; it is also posted on the e-learning platform. Required reading: Baldwin, David A. ‗Power and International Relations.‘ The Handbook of International Relations eds.

Walter Carlsnaes, Thomas Risse and Beth A. Simmons. Sage, 2002, 177-191. Buzan, Barry. ‗Security, the State, and the ―New World Order,‖ and Beyond‘ in On Security ed. Ronnie

D. Lipschutz. New York: Columbia University Press, 1995, 187-211 Hough, Peter. ‗Chapter 1, The Securitization of Issues‘ from Understanding Global Security, 2nd

edition. London: Routledge, 2008, 1-23. (You may also want to read or skim the rest of the book.)

Paris, Roland. ―Human Security: Paradigm Shift or Hot Air?‖ International Security 26:2 (Fall 2001) pp. 87-102.

Snyder, Glenn H. ‗Mearsheimer's World-Offensive Realism and the Struggle for Security: A Review Essay.‘ International Security, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Summer 2002), 149–173

Tickner, JoAnn. "Re-Visioning Security" in International Relations Theory Today eds. Ken Booth and Steve Smith(1995), 175-197.

Please also read: *Cohn, Carol. ―Sex and Death in the Rational World of Defense Intellectuals,‖ Signs: Journal of

Women in Culture and Society vol. 12, no. 4 (1987), 687-718. Recommended background reading: Buzan, Barry and Lene Hansen. The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2009. Further reading: ‗What is ‗‖Human Security‖?‘ Special Section, Security Dialogue, vol. 35, 3. Baldwin, David A. ―Security Studies and the End of the Cold War,‖ World Politics 48:1 (October 1995),

117-141. Baldwin, David A. ‗Power Analysis and World Politics: New Trends versus Old Tendencies,‘ World

Politics, Volume 31, Issue 2 (Jan., 1979), 161-194. Buzan, Barry and Lene Hansen. The Evolution of International Security Studies. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2009. Chandler, David. ‗Review Essay: Human Security: The Dog that Didn‘t Bark.‘ Security Dialogue, vol.

39, #4, 427-438 and debate that follows in same issue. Collins, Alan, ed. Contemporary Security Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), especially

selections by Patrick Morgan, Paul Rogers, David Mutimer, Caroline Kennedy-Pipe, Pauline Kerr and Ralf Emmers, 13-125.

Desch, Michael. ‗Culture Clash: Assessing the Importance of Ideas in Security Studies.‘ International Security 23, no. 1 (Summer 1998): 141-70.

Katzenstein, Peter J. ―Introduction: Alternative Perspectives on National Security,‖ in Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security (Columbia University Press, 1996) pp. 1-32.

Weaver, Ole . "Securitization and Desecuritization" in On Security. Ed. Ronnie Lipschutz. New York: Columbia University, 1995, 46-86.

2. The Science of Ballistic and Cruise Missiles


6

Topics: Characteristics of effective delivery systems; ballistic and cruise missile basics; ballistic missiles and missile defence: policy implications (North Korea exercise) Required reading: Legault, A. and Lindsey, G., The Dynamics of the Nuclear Balance (revised edition) (Ithaca, NY: Cornell

University Press, 1976), Chapter II (Maughan Library, UA10 L52). This excellent overview of the ballistic missile is somewhat dated now, but not as much as you might think—only one new US ICBM (MX/Peacekeeper) has been introduced since the book was written, and that was decommissioned in 2005.

Mackenzie, D., Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1993), Chapters 2, 4 and 5 and Appendix B, remainder [Further Reading] (Maughan Library, UG1312.B34 MAC). Written by a mathematician-turned-sociologist, this book focuses on sociological aspects of the history of ballistic missile guidance. It is also outstandingly accurate from a technical perspective and highly readable.

U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction, US Government Printing Office (Washington, DC, 1993), Chapter 5, The Proliferation of Delivery Systems (<http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1993/9344/934407.PDF>).

George N. Lewis and Theodore A. Postol, ‗Long-range Nuclear Cruise Missiles and Stability,‘ Science and Global Security, Vol. 3, pp. 49-99 <http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/pdf/3_1-2lewis.pdf> (1992) Jan

Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD): Postol, Theodore & Lewis, George. ‗A Flawed and Dangerous U.S. Missile Defense Plan,‘ Arms Control

Today, May 2010 (a short concise article outlining many of the arguments used by critics of BMD systems (contrast with US government policy at http://www.mda.mil/ or ‗Ballistic Missile Defense Review Report‘, US Department of Defence, February 2010, http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/docs/BMDR%20as%20of%2026JAN10%200630_for%20web.pdf)

Stupl and GötzNeuneck, ‗Assessment of Long Range Laser Weapon Engagements: The Case of the Airborne Laser‘, Science and Global Security, 18:1–60 (2010) http://www.princeton.edu/sgs/publications/sgs/archive/18-1-SGA-Stupl-and-Neuneck-.pdf

Background for exercise on North Korean BM policy issues: ‗North Korean Security Challenges: A Net Assessment‘, IISS Strategic Dossier, June 2011 – Chapter six

on Ballistic missile capabilities – provides a historical and technical overview of the programme‘s development until mid-2011. Alternatively, exhaustive history is provided by NTI at http://www.nti.org/media/pdfs/north_korea_missile_3.pdf?_=1340403538

Wright, David. ‗Preview: The North Korean launch‘, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (Online), 12 April 2012, available at http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/preview-the-north-korean-launch

Arms Control Wonk blog frequently posts on ballistic missile issues. A number of posts have been made fairly recently on North Korean activities (for example: http://pollack.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/3932/north-koreas-icbm-unveiled). Be sure to check the extensive comments section!

Further reading: Donald Mackenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance, MIT Press

(1993) Fetter, S., ‗Ballistic Missiles and Weapons of Mass Destruction: What is the Threat?

Done?‘,International Security, vol. 16, no. 1 (1991), pp. 5—41. A classic.


7

Carus, W. S., Cruise Missile Proliferation in the 1990s, Praeger (Westport, CT, 1992), Chapters 2 & 4. Gormley, D. M., Missile Contagion: Cruise Missile Proliferation and the Threat to International

Security, Praeger Security International, ISBN 0-275-99836-3. This covers similar material to the Carus book but it more up to date.

Barton et al., ‗Report of the American Physical Society Study Group on Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for National Missile Defense: Scientific and Technical Issues‘, Rev. Mod. Phys. Vol. 76, S1-S424 <http://rmp.aps.org/pdf/RMP/v76/i3/pS1_1> (2004)

3. The Science of Space Security Topics: Orbital basics; Placing objects in orbit; Satellite components; Space situational awareness; Disrupting satellites; Resilience of satellite networks; Space Debris. Required reading: ‗Orbital Mechanics‘, Space Primer (Chapter 8), Air University

http://space.au.af.mil/primer/orbital_mechanics.pdf. Technical Background: This paper provides a basic introduction to orbital motion.

Space Security Index, Space Security 2011 http://www.spacesecurity.org/, Chapter 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (plus the rest for further reading). An annual publication which examines current space security challenges.

Wright, D., Grego, L. and Gronlund, D, The Physics of Space Security, American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Cambridge, MA, 2005), http://www.amacad.org/publications/rulesSpace.aspx. Section 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 12 (plus the rest for further reading). Contains all the basic physics.

'Space Debris‗, Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, Postnote, March 2010 No. 355 http://www.parliament.uk/documents/documents/upload/postpn355.pdf

Ross Liemer and Christopher F. Chyba, ‗A Verifiable Limited Test Ban for Anti-satellite Weapons‗, The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 149-163 http://www.twq.com/10july/docs/10jul_LiemerChyba.pdf

Gregory Kulacki & Jeffrey G. Lewis, 'Understanding China's Antisatellite Test', Volume 15, Issue 2, 2008, pp.335-347

Further reading: Leet W. Wood, 'Projecting power: The security implications of space-based solar power', Bulletin of

the Atomic Scientists, January/February 2012; vol. 68, 1: pp. 70-78 Subrata Ghoshroy, 'Coming not so soon to a theater near you: Laser weapons for missile defense',

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November/December 2011; vol. 67, 6: pp. 34-43 International Space University http://www.isunet.edu/ This is a useful resource with links to news

and press stories and recent publications. Crail, Peter .‗Iran Space Launch Raises Missile Concerns‘, Arms Control Today, September 2008

http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2008_09/IranSpace Preston, Robert, Dana J. Johnson, Sean J. A. Edwards, Michael D. Miller, Calvin Shipbaugh, ‗Space

Weapons Earth Wars‘, RAND http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1209/ (2002)

Ting Wang, ‗Analysis of Debris from the Collision of the Cosmos 2251 and the Iridium 33 Satellites‗, Science & Global Security, 18: 2, 87-118 (July 2010)

4. Offensive and Defensive Arms Races: BMD and Space Weapons?


8

What is an arms race, what are its causes, and what, if any, are the dangers associated with an arms race? Has there been an arms race in ballistic missile defenses or in space weapons, or is there a risk that such a race could develop? Are there policies that could avert/end such races? Required: Arms Race Theory: Buzan, Barry. ―Strategic Rivalry and Military Technology: The Arms Dynamic.‘ Part II of An

Introduction to Strategic Studies (London: MacMiIllan, 1987), 69-131. Gray, Colin S. ‗The Arms Race Phenomenon.‘ World Politics, Vol. 24, No. 1. (Oct., 1971), pp. 39-79. Intriligator, Michael D. and Dagobert L. Brito. ‗Can Arms Races Lead to the Outbreak of War?‘ The

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 28, No. 1. (Mar., 1984), pp. 63-84. Jervis, Robert. ‗Cooperation under the Security Dilemma‘, World Politics, Vol. 30, No. 2. (Jan.1978),

167-214. Larsen, Jeffrey A. ―An Introduction to Arms Control and Cooperative Security‘ in Arms Control and

Cooperative Security eds. Jeffrey A Larsen and James J Wirtz. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner 2009, 1-20.

MacKenzie, Donald. ‗Towards an Historical Sociology of Nuclear Weapons Technologies‘ in Arms Races: Technological and Political Dynamics eds. Nils Petter Gleditsch and Olav Njolstad. (London: Sage, 1990), 121-139.

Further reading, arms races: Allison, G.T. "Questions About the Arms Race: Who's Racing Whom? A Bureaucratic Perspective," in

R.L. Pfaltzgraff (ed.), Contrasting Approaches to Strategic Arms Control. London: Lexington Books, 1974. (LSE)

Bitzinger, Richard A. ―The Globalization of the Arms Industry: The Next Proliferation Challenge,‖ International Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Fall 1994), 170-198. (KCL)

Bolks, Seanand Richard J. Stoll. ‗The Arms Acquisition Process: The Effect of Internal and External Constraints on Arms Race Dynamics.‘ Journal of Conflict Resolution vol.44, No.5 (October 2000) 580-603.

Gleditsch, Nils Petter and Olav Njolstad. Arms Races: Technological and Political Dynamics eds. (London: Sage, 1990).

Hollist, Ladd. "Alternative Explanations of Competitive Arms Processes: Tests on Four Pairs of Nations," American Journal of Political Science, 22 (1977), 313-40.(LSE)

Intriligator and Dagobert L. Brito. ‗A Possible Future for the Arms Race‘ in Arms Races: Technological and Political Dynamics eds. Nils Petter Gleditsch and Olav Njolstad. (London: Sage, 1990), 376-383.

Kaldor, Mary. "Military R&D: Cause or Consequence of the Arms Race?" International Social Science Journal, 35/1 (1983), 25-45.(LSE)

Kaldor, Mary. ―Do Modern Economies Require War or Preparations for War?‖ in Robert Hinde, The Institution of War. NY: St Martin‘s Press, 1992, 178-191. (KCL)

MacKenzie, Donald. ‗Review: Technology and the Arms Race.‘ International Security 14, 1 (Summer 1989), 161-175. [Review of Innovation and the Arms Race: How the United States and the Soviet Union Develop New Military Technologies by Matthew Evangelista.]

Nicholson, Michael. Rationality and the Analysis of International Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992, chapter 9, 164-186.

Ostrom, C. "Evaluating Alternative Foreign Policy Decision-Making Models: An Empirical Test Between an Arms Race Model and an Organization Politics Model," Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21 (197), 235-66. (KCL)

Paul, T.V. ―Influence through Arms Transfers.‖ Asian Survey 32, 2 (December 92) 1078-1092. (LSE) Sample, Susan G. ‗Arms Races and Dispute Escalation: Resolving the Debate.‘ Journal of Peace

Research, Vol. 34, No. 1 (1997), 7-22. Saris, W., and C. Middendorp. "Arms Races: External Security or Domestic Pressure?,‖ British Journal of

Political Science, 10 (1980), 121-8. (LSE)


9

Terttrais, Bruno. ‗Do Arms Races Matter?‘ The Washington Quarterly vol. 24, 4 (Autumn 2001), 123-133. Readings on Ballistic Missile Defense Report of the American Physical Society Study Group on Boost-Phase Intercept Systems for

National Missile Defense, July 2003, Broad, William, Star Warriors: a penetrating look into the lives of the young scientists behind our space age

weaponry, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1985. (Maughan Library, U394.L58 BRO) Broad, William, Teller’s War: the top secret story behind the star wars deception, New York: Simon &

Schuster, 1992. Glaser, Charles and Steve Fetter, ―National Missile Defense and the Future of US Nuclear Weapons

Policy,‖ International Security, Vol. 26, No. 1 (Summer 2001) pp. 40-92. CNS publication of 'BMD in Northeast Asia...1990-Present'; Deutch, John, Harold Brown, and John P. White, ―National Missile Defense: Is There Another

Way?‖ Foreign Policy, No. 119 (Summer 2000), pp. 91-100. Fitz-Gerald, Frances, Way Out There in the Blue: Reagan, Star Wars, and the End of the Cold War, New

York: Simon & Schuster, 2000. (Maughan Library, E876 FIT) Halperin, Morton H., ‗The Decision to Deploy the ABM: Bureaucratic and Domestic Politics in the

Johnson Administration,‘ World Politics, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 62-95. Ivanov, Igor, ―The Missile-Defense Mistake,‖ Foreign Affairs, Vol. 79. No. 5 (Sept.-Oct 2000), pp. 15-

20. Lennon, Alexander T.J. (ed.), Contemporary Nuclear Debates – Missile Defenses, Arms Control, and Arms

Races in the Twenty-First Century, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 2002 (Maughan Library, UG743 CON).

Lewis, George, Lisbeth Gronlund, and David Wright, ―National Missile Defense: An Indefensible System,‖ Foreign Policy, No. 117 (Winter 1999-2000), pp. 120-137.

O‘Hanlon, Michael, ―Star Wars Strikes Back,‖ Foreign Affairs, Vol. 78, No. 6 (November/December 1999), pp. 68-82.

Payne, Keith B., ―Action-Reaction Metaphysics and Intelligence,‖ The Washington Quarterly, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 109-121 (Autumn 2001).

Zimmerman, Peter, ―Pork Bellies and SDI,‖ Foreign Policy, No. 63 (Summer 1986. Zhange, Baohui. ‗US Missile Defence and China‘s Nucleare Posture: Changing Dynamics of an

Offence-Defence Race.‘ International Affairs 87, 3 (May 2011), 555-569. Readings on Space Weapons: Bell, Bertotti, Bruno and Paolo Farinella, ―Space Weapons and Arms Control,‖ in The Arms Race in

the Era of Star Wars, David Carlton and Carlo Schaerf (eds.), Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1988, pp. 257-271 (Maughan Library, UA10 Ar57).

Bob, Dana J. Johnson, Sean Edwards, Michael Miller, Calvin Shipbaugh, ―Space Weapons, Earth Wars,‖ RAND/National Defense Research Institute, 2002

DeBlois, Bruce M. (ed.), Beyond The Paths of Heaven: The Emergence of Space Power Thought, Air University Press, September 1999.

Hansel, Mischa. ‗The USA and Arms Control in Space.‘ Space Policy 26, 2 (May 2010), 91-98. Hays, Peter L. et al., Spacepower for a New Millennium: Space and U.S. National Security, The United States

Air Force Institute for National Security Studies, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (2000).

Jasani, Bhupendra, ―Militarisation of Space: an Arms Control Dilemma,‖ in The Arms Race in the Era of Star Wars, David Carlton and Carlo Schaerf (eds.), Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1988, pp. 232-256 (Maughan Library, UA10 Ar57).

Johnson, Dana J., Scott Pace, and C. Bryan Gabbard, ―Space: Emerging Options for National Power‖, RAND/National Defense Research Institute, 1988,


10

Krepon, Michael and Samuel Black. Space Security or Anti-satellite Weapons? Washtington DC: Henry L. Stimson Center, May 2009.

Moltz, James Clay. ‗China, the United States, and Prospects for Asian Space Cooperation.‘ Journal of Contemporary China 20, 68 (2011), 69-87.

O‘Hanlon, Michael, ―The State of Space: From Strategic Reconnaissance to Tactical Warfighting to Possible Weaponization,‖ Testimony before the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the House Armed Services Committee, 21st June, 2006

Peter L. et al., Spacepower for a New Millennium: Space and U.S. National Security, The United States Air Force Institute for National Security Studies, New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (2000).

Preston, Spacy, Thomas D., ―Weaponization of Space: Understanding Strategic and Technological Inevitabilities,‖ CSAT Occasional Paper No. 6, January 1999

Robinson, Jana. ‗Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures for Space Security.‘ Space Policy 27, 1 (February 2011), 27-37.

Slijper, Frank. The EU Should Freeze its Military Ambitions Space.‖ Space Policy 25, 2 (May 2009), 70-74.

US Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 2-2, ―Space Operations‖, 27 November 2001 US Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD) 2-2.1, ―Counterspace Operations‖, 2 August 2004, US Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) ―Strategic Master Plan FY04 and Beyond‖, US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 3-14, ―Joint Doctrine for Space Operations,‖ 9 August

2002 William L., II, ―Does the United States Need Space-Based Weapons?‖ CADRE Paper, Air

University Press, September 1999, Zhang, Baohui. ‗The Security Dilemma in the US-China Military Space Relationship: The Prospects

for Arms Control.‘ Asian Survey 51, 2 (March/April 2011), 311-332. 5. Cyber security: threats, challenges and legal aspects Topics: What forms of action have governments taken to address cybersecurity issues? How are cybersecurity threats and responses constructed and justified in and through public discourse? How do the public and the private relate in cybersecurity? In a similar vein, what tensions exist between the local, national, international and global elements of cybersecurity? What is ‘cyberpower’? Required reading: Thomas Rid & Peter McBurney, 'Cyber-Weapons', The RUSI Journal, vol 157,

February 2012, pp. 6-13 Ronald Deibert, 'Tracking the emerging arms race in cyberspace', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,

January/February 2011; vol. 67, 1: pp.1-8 Martin C. Libicki, ‗Cyber Deterrence and Cyberwar‗, RAND Monograph

<http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG877.pdf (2009) Schmitt, Michael. ‗Computer Network Attack and the Use of Force in International Law: Thoughts

on a Normative Framework‘, 37, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 885 (1999) Symantec Internet Security Threat Report: The 2011 Threat Landscape, Symantec, Vol. 17

http://www.symantec.com/threatreport/ (April 2011) Tom Gjelten, 'Shadow Wars: Debating Cyber 'Disarmament', World Affairs,

http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/shadow-wars-debating-cyber-disa rmament, November/December 2012

Optional reading:


11

Christopher Hobbs and Alastair Patterson, ‗Mitigating against cyber attacks by regaining control of your digital shadow', World Defence Systems, 2011- Nicolas Falliere, Liam O Murchu, and Eric Chien,'W32.Stuxnet Dossier, Symantec, February 2011, www.symantec.com/content/en/us/.../w32_stuxnet_dossier.pdf

R. Scott Kemp, 'Cyberweapons: Bold steps in a digital darkness?', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 7th June 2012 http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/cyberweapons-bold-steps-digi tal-darkness

Edward C. Liu, Gina Stevens, Kathleen Ann Ruane, Alissa M. Dolan and Richard M. Thompson II, 'Cybersecurity: Selected Legal Issues', CRS Report, 14th March 2012, fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/187396.pdf

Michael N. Schmitt, 'Wired warfare: Computer network attack and jus in bello', IRRC June 2002 Vol. 84 No 846, http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/365_400_schmitt.pdf

6. Cyber security: politics, policy and strategy What forms of action have governments taken to address cybersecurity issues? How are cybersecurity threats and responses constructed and justified in and through public discourse? How do the public and the private relate in cybersecurity? In a similar vein, what tensions exist between the local, national, international and global elements of cybersecurity? What is ‘cyberpower’? Required reading: Deibert, Ronald J., and Rafal Rohozinski (2010), ‗Risking Security: Policies and Paradoxes of

Cyberspace Security‘, International Political Sociology, Vol.4, No.1, pp.15-32. Nissenbaum, Helen (2005), ‗Where Computer Security meets National Security‘, Ethics & Information

Technology, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 61-73. UK Government, The UK Cyber Security Strategy: Protecting and Promoting the UK in a Digital World,

November 2011; available at http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/uk-cyber-security-strategy_0.pdf

US Government, International Strategy for Cyberspace: Prosperity, Security, and Openness in a Networked World, May 2011; available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/international_strategy_for_cyberspace.pdf

Further reading: Abrahamsen, Rita, and Michael C. Williams (2009), ‗Security Beyond the State: Global Security

Assemblages in International Politics‘, International Political Sociology, Vol.3, No.1, pp.1-17. Arquilla, John and David Ronfeldt (1993), ‗Cyberwar is Coming!‘, Comparative Strategy, Vol.12, No.2,

pp.141-165; reprint available at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a485253.pdf Arquilla, John and David Ronfeldt (1997), ‗Looking Ahead: Preparing for Information-Age

Conflict‘, in John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt, eds.,In Athena’s Camp: Preparing for Conflict in the Information Age (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation), pp.439-501; available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR880/.

Betz, David J. (2012), ‗Cyberpower and International Security‘, FPRI E-Notes, June 2012; available at http://www.fpri.org/enotes/2012/201206.betz.cyberpower-international-security.html.

Brunner, Elgin and Manuel Suter (2008), International CIIP Handbook 2008/2009, Zurich: Swiss Federal Institute of Technology; available at http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:31095/eth-31095-01.pdf

EastWest Institute, Worldwide Cybersecurity Initiative (http://www.ewi.info/worldwide-cybersecurity-initiative)

Hansen, Lene and Helen Nissenbaum (2009), ‗Digital Disaster, Cyber Security, and the Copenhagen School‘, International Studies Quarterly, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 1155-1175.

https://kclmail.kcl.ac.uk/OWA/redir.aspx?C=30a4011203894e0d9bfa8d89bf699cf6&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cabinetoffice.gov.uk%2fsites%2fdefault%2ffiles%2fresources%2fuk-cyber-security-strategy_0.pdf

https://kclmail.kcl.ac.uk/OWA/redir.aspx?C=30a4011203894e0d9bfa8d89bf699cf6&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.cabinetoffice.gov.uk%2fsites%2fdefault%2ffiles%2fresources%2fuk-cyber-security-strategy_0.pdf

https://kclmail.kcl.ac.uk/OWA/redir.aspx?C=30a4011203894e0d9bfa8d89bf699cf6&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.whitehouse.gov%2fsites%2fdefault%2ffiles%2frss_viewer%2finternational_strategy_for_cyberspace.pdf

https://kclmail.kcl.ac.uk/OWA/redir.aspx?C=30a4011203894e0d9bfa8d89bf699cf6&URL=http%3a%2f%2fwww.whitehouse.gov%2fsites%2fdefault%2ffiles%2frss_viewer%2finternational_strategy_for_cyberspace.pdf


12

Hughes, Rex (2010), ‗A Treaty for Cyberspace‘, International Affairs, Vol.86, No.2, pp. 523-541. Journal of National Security Law and Policy, Vol.4, No.1 (2010), Special Issue on Cybersecurity; available

athttp://www.jnslp.com/read/vol4no1.asp Lawson, Sean (2011) Beyond Cyber Doom: Cyber Attack Scenarios and the Evidence of History, Working

Paper 11-01, Mercatus Center, George Mason University; available at http://mercatus.org/publication/beyond-cyber-doom

Lewis, James A. (2010), The Cyber War Has Not Begun (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies); available at http://csis.org/files/publication/100311_TheCyberWarHasNotBegun.pdf

Libicki, Martin C. (2009), Cyberdeterrence and Cyberwar (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation); available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG877/

Morozov, Evgeny (2010), ‗Battling the Cyber Warmongers‘, Wall Street Journal, 8 May 2010; available at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704370704575228653351323986.html

Nissenbaum, Helen (2004), ‗Hackers and the Contested Ontology of Cyberspace‘, New Media & Society, Vol.6, No.2, pp.195-217; available at http://fido.rockymedia.net/anthro/hackers_cyber.pdf

Nye, Joseph S., Jr. (2010), Cyber Power, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University; available at http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/cyber-power.pdf

Rid, Thomas (2012), ‗Cyber War Will Not Take Place‘, Journal of Strategic Studies, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 5-32

Stevens, Tim (2012), ‗A Cyberwar of Ideas? Deterrence and Norms in Cyberspace‘, Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 148-170

Session 7: Climate Change Is there a scientific consensus on climate change? How can we best understand the politics surrounding climate change? What is required for effective policy on climate change? Would/does a link between climate change and security promote or hinder effective policy? Because we are trying to cover so much in one class, both the required and further readings are divided into four sections: 1.Science and climate change; 2.The nature of the problem; 3. What has been done and why has so little been achieved? And 4. Would a link between climate change and security promote or inhibit progress? Background Maslin, Mark ‘Chapter 3: What is the evidence for Climate Change?‘ in Global Warming: A Very Short

Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 41-59. (DCP) For a more basic introduction, see http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change

See also http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/series/the-ultimate-climate-change-faq United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change http://unfccc.int/2860.php Required reading

1. Science and Climate change: What is the evidence? What is the basis for scepticism? What role is the (uncertain) science playing in the politics surrounding climate change?

Martin, Brian. ―Nuclear winter: science and politics.‖ Science and Public Policy, Vol. 15, No. 5, October 1988, 321-334. [What might this argument about role of science in nuclear winter debate suggest for role of science on climate change?]

Haas, Peter M. ‗Obtaining International Environmental Protection through Epistemic Consensus.‘ Millennium - Journal of International Studies December 1990 19: 347-363, doi:10.1177/03058298900190030401


13

2. The nature of the problem—geopolitics, global common, etc? What is the politics surrounding climate change? What are the interests of the various actors, and how do they meet or collide?

Harrison , Kathryn and Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom. ‗Introduction: Global Commons, Domestic Decisions’ from Global Commons, Domestic Decisions: The Comparative Politics of Climate Change, edited by Kathryn Harrison and Lisa McIntosh Sundstrom.London: MIT Press, 2010, 1-22. (DCP)

Giddens, Anthony. ‗The Geopolitics of Climate Change‘ from Politics of Climate Change. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2009, 203-226. (DCP)

Vezirgiannidou, Sevasti-Eleni. ‗The Kyoto Agreement and the pursuit of relative gains.‘ Environmental Politics Vol. 17, 1 (2008), 40-57.

3. What has been done and why has so little been achieved? Ghosh, Arunabha and Ngaire Woods, ‗Chapter 22: Governing climate change: lessons from other

governance regimes‘ from The Economics and Politics of Climate Change eds. Dieter Helm and Cameron Hebburn. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009, 454-477. (DCP)

Helm, Dieter. ‗Climate Change Policy: Why has so little been achieved?’Oxford Review of Economic Policy (2008) 24 (2): 211-238. doi: 10.1093/oxrep/grn014

Victor, David G. ‗Toward Effective International Cooperation on Climate Change: Numbers, Interests and Institutions.‘ Global Environmental Politics 2006 6:3, 90-103

4. Climate change and security Would/does a link between climate change and security promote or

hinder effective policy? Dupont, Alan. ‗The Strategic Implications of Climate Change.‘ Survival, Volume 50, Issue 3 June 2008 ,

pp. 29 – 54. Tertrais, Bruno. ‗The Climate Wars Myth.‘ The Washington Quarterly Vol. 34, Iss. 3, 2011, 17-29. Further reading Science and Climate Change Pielke, Roger A. ‗Misdefining ‗Climate Change‖ : consequences for science and action.‘ Environmental

Science and Policy 6, 6 (Dec 2005), 548-561. [Argues ‗that the consequences of mis-defining ―climate change‖ create a bias against adaptation policies and set the stage for the politicization of climate science.‗]

Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Reto Ruedy, Andrew Lacis, and Valdar Oinas. ‗‗Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario.‘ PNAS 2000 97 (18) 9875-9880. [Argues rapid warming has been caused by non-CO2 gases and that we could see rate in decline of warming.]

Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja. ‗A Winning Coalition of Advocacy: Climate Research, Bureaucracy and ―Alternative‖ Fuels. Who is Driving Climate Change Policy?‘ Energy Policy 26, 4 (March 1997), 439-444.

Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja. ‗Global climate protection policy: The limits of scientific advice‘, Part 1, Global Environmental Change, Volume 4, Issue 2, June 1994, Pages 140- 159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0959-3780(94)90049-3

Boehmer-Christiansen, Sonja. ‗Global climate protection policy: The limits of scientific advice‘, Part 2, Global Environmental Change, Volume 4, Issue 3, September 1994, Pages 185-200 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0959-3780(94)90002-7

Caldwell, Lynton Keith. ‗Science and governance,‖ in Between Two Worlds: Science, the Environmental Movement, and Policy Choice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 21-37.

Malnes, Raino. "Imperfect Science." Global Environmental Politics 6.3 (2006): 58-71. R.A. Pielke Jr. (1998), ‗Rethinking the Role of Adaptation in Climate Policy.‘ Global Environmental

Change, 8, 2 9 (June 1998), 159-170. News articles:


14

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8389547.stm http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/09/02/paper-disputing-basic-science-of-

climate-change-is-fundamentally-flawed-editor-resigns-apologizes/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/21/science/earth/21climate.html

The Nature of the Problem Barrett, S. ‗Political economy of the Kyoto Protocol.‘ Oxfprd Review Economic Policy 14,4 (1998):

20-39. Grubb, Michael (1995). ‗Seeking Fair Weather: Ethics and the International Debate on Climate

Change.‘ International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-) , Vol. 71, No. 3, Ethics, the Environment and the Changing International Order (Jul., 1995), 463-496

Hardin, Geoffrey. ‗The Tragedy of the Commons.‘ Science 162, 3859 (Dec 13, 1968), 1243-1248. Helm, Dieter and Cameron Hebburn, eds. The Economics and Politics of Climate Change. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2009, esp Part II, The Global Players and Agreements. Skim as appropriate. For electronic versions of some of these, see http://oxrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2.toc.

Levy, David L. and Daniel Egan (1998), ‗Capital Contests: National and Transnational Channels of Corporate Influence on the Climate Change Negotiations‘ Politics & Society 26 (September 1998): 337-361, doi:10.1177/0032329298026003003

Rowlands, Ian H. (1997). ‗International Fairness and Justice in Addressing Global Climate Change‘ Environmental Politics Vol. 6, 3 (1997) 1-30. DOI:10.1080/09644019708414340

What has been done and why has so little been achieved ‗The Road Forward from Copenhagen: Climate Change Policy in the 21st Century.‘ Panel

Discussion. American Society of International Law Proceedings, Vol. 104, pp. 537-559. Barrett, Scott (2008). ‗Climate Treaties and the Imperative of Enforcement. Oxford Review of Economic

Policy 24, 2 (2008), 239-258. Bodansky, Daniel. ‗ The Copenhagen Climate Change Conference: A Post-mortem,‘ American Journal

of International Law, Vol. 104, Issue 2 (April 2010), pp. 230-240 Depledge, Joanna. ‗The Opposite of Learning: Ossification in the Climate Change Regime.‘ Global

Environmental Politics 6, 1 (February 2006). Giddens, Anthony. ‗Climate Change Meets Geopolitical Reality in Copenhagen.‘ New Perspectives

Quarterly 27, 2 (Winter 2010), http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2010_spring/18_giddens.html Haas , Peter M. Climate Change Governance after Bali.‘ Global Environmental Politics, August 2008,

Vol. 8, No. 3 , 1-7. Helm, Dieter and Cameron Hebburn, eds. The Economics and Politics of Climate Change. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2009, various chapters; the journal article version of some are available at http://oxrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/24/2.toc

Kellow, Aynsley. ‗Lessons Not Learned in Environmental Governance: International Climate Policy Beyond Kyoto.‘ Asia Pacific Journal of Environmental Law, 11, (1 & 2), 101-12.

Soroos, Marvin S. (2001), ‗Global Climate Change and the Futility of the Kyoto Process‘ Global Climate Change and the Futility of the Kyoto Process.‘ Global Environmental Politics 1:2, 1-9.

Sunstein, Cass R. ‗Of Montreal and Kyoto: A Tale of Two Protocols‘ Harvard Environmental Law 31, 1 (2007), 1-66.

Ward, H., Grundig, F. and Zorick, E. R. (2001), ‗Marching at the Pace of the Slowest: a Model of International Climate-Change Negotiations.‘ Political Studies, 49: 438–461. doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.00320.

Young, Oran R. ‗The Politics of International Regime Formation: Managing Natural Resources and the Environment.‘ International Organization , Vol. 43, No. 3 (Summer, 1989), pp. 349-375.


15

Climate change and security Deudney, Daniel. ―The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation And National Security,‖

Millennium Vol. 19 (1990), 461-476. (ejournal) Homer-Dixon, Thomas and Jessica Blitt. Ecoviolence: Links Among Environment, Population, and Security

Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998. Kaplan, Robert D. ―The Coming Anarchy,‖ The Atlantic Monthly vol. 273 (February 1994). Matthew, Richard A. 2000. ‗The Environment as a National Security Issue,‘ Journal of Policy History 12, 1.

(ejournal) Matthew, Richard, Ted Gaulin and Bryan McDonald. ‗The Elusive Quest: Linking Environmental

Change and Conflict,‘ Canadian Journal of Political Science 36, # 4 (September 2003). Matthew, Richard A. et al., eds. Global Environmental Change and Human Security. MIT Press, 2009. Mazo, Jeffrey. ‗'Thinking the Unthinkable', Survival, 50/3, 2008, pp.249-256 (ejournal) 8. Science and Verification Topics: Verification challenges (nuclear and biological); Evolution of the Nuclear Safeguards System; The role of intelligence in verification; Future verification systems (nuclear warhead dismantlement) Required reading:

IAEA Safeguards: Staying ahead of the game, IAEA Department of Safeguards, 2007 http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Safeguards3/safeguards0707.pdf [technical background] Fischer, D. and Szasz, P., Safeguarding the Atom: A Critical Appraisal, Taylor and Francis (London, 1985), Chapters 4—6. A classic summary of IAEA safeguards written before the Iraq war.

Theodore Hirsch, ‗The IAEA Additional Protocol: What it is and why it matters‗, Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 11, No. 3 http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/113hirsch.pdf (2004)

Filippa Lentzos, 'Hard to prove: The Verification Quandary of the Biological Weapons Convention', The Nonproliferation Review, Volume 18, Issue 3, 2011

Adam M. Scheinman, 'Calling for action: The Next Generation Safeguards Initiative', The Nonproliferation Review, Volume 16 , Issue 2, pp.257-267, 2009

David Cliff, Hassan Elbahtimy and Andreas Persbo, ‗Verifying Warhead Dismantlement: Past, present, future‗, VERTIC Research Report, No. 9 http://www.vertic.org/media/assets/Publications/VM9.pdf (September 2010).

Further reading: Serial publications by VERTIC, available from

http://www.vertic.org/pages/homepage/publications/serial-publications.php John Hart, 'On-site inspections in arms control and disarmament verification', Verification Matters

No. 4 (2002) http://www.vertic.org/pages/homepage/publications/serial-publications/verification-matters.php

Jonathan B. Tucker, 'The convergence of biology and chemistry: Implications for arms control verification', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November/December 2010; vol. 66, 6: pp. 56-66

Filippa Lentzos, 'Strengthening the Biological Weapons Convention confidence-building measures: Toward a cycle of engagement', Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May/June 2011; vol. 67, 3: pp. 26-33.

Lars-Erik De Geer, 'Radionuclide Evidence for Low-Yield Nuclear Testing in North Korea in April/May 2010', Science & Global Security: The Technical Basis for Arms Control, Disarmament, and Nonproliferation Initiatives, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 1-29, 2012


16

U.S. Office of Technology Assessment, Nuclear Safeguards and the International Atomic Energy Agency, US Government Printing Office (Washington, DC, 1995), box 3-2 on pp. 45—48. (http://www.wws.princeton.edu/ota/). A clear, short exposition of the technical basis for material accountancy—make sure you understand it!

‗The IAEA‘s dilemma with Syria‘s Al Kibar nuclear site‘, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 6 May 2008. Short article describing the difficulty in IAEA‗s difficult in identifying and verifying Syria‗s Al Kibar reactor.

‗International Safeguards and Satellite Imagery: Key Features of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Computer-Based Analysis 2008‘, Springer, ISBN: 978-3-540-79131-7. This book assesses the utility of using satellite imagery in identifying key nuclear facilities.

9. Technology, Military Utility and Legality: Case Study of Unmanned Combat Air

Vehicles (UCAVs) What are UCAVs? How have UCAVs been employed in conflict? What legal and ethical issues are raised by the employment of UCAVs, notably in the context of counter terrorism and counter insurgency operations? Required reading: Anderson, Kenneth. Testimony to Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs, House

of Representatives, Hearing on ‗Rise of the Drones: Unmanned Systems and the Future of War‘, 18 March 2010, 14pp, http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2010_hr/ (LEGAL)

Barnidge, Robert P. ‗A Qualified Defense of American Drone Attacks in Northwest Pakistan Under International Humanitarian Law‘, 50pp, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1916185

Orr, Andrew C. ‗Unmanned, Unprecedented, and Unresolved: The Status of American Drone Strikes in Pakistan Under International Law‘, Cornell International Law Journal Vol. 4/3 (Fall 2011) pp.730-752, http://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/research/ILJ/upload/Orr-final.pdf

O‘Connell, Mary Ellen. ‗Seductive Drones: Learning from a Decade of Lethal Operations‘, Journal of Law, Information and Science (2011), 27pp, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1912635

O‘Connell, Mary Ellen.‘Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones: A Case Study of Pakistan, 2004-2009‘, Notre Dame Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-43 (July 2010), 27pp, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1501144

Vogel, Ryan J. ‗Drone Warfare and the Law of Armed Conflict‘, Denver Journal of International Law and Policy, 39/1 (2011), pp.101-138, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1759562##

Further reading: Bataoel, Vincent. ‗On the use of drones in military operations in Libya: ethical, legal, and social

issues‘, Synesis: A Journal of Science, Technology, Ethics and Policy 2 (2011), pp.G69-G76, http://www.synesisjournal.com/vol2_g/2011_2_G69-76_Bataoel.pdf

Blank, Laurie R. ‗After ―Top Gun‖: How Drone Strikes Impact the Law of War‘, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 33/3 (2012), pp.675-718, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1948783

Chatham House, ‗International Law and the Use of Drones‘, Summary of the International Law Discussion Group meeting held at Chatham House on 21 October 2010 (Speakers: Mary Ellen O‘Connell; Michael N. Schmitt), http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/public/Research/International%20Law/il211010drones.pdf

Gertler, Jeremiah. ‗U.S. Unmanned Aerial Systems‘, US Congressional Research Service, 3 January 2012, 50pp, http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42136.pdf

Hagger, Meredith. Tim McCormack, ‗Regulating the Use of Unmanned Combat Vehicles: Are


17

General Principles of International Humanitarian Law Sufficient?‘ Journal of Law, Information and Science Vol. 21, Issue 1 (2011), 26pp, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2008056

Hansen, Victor. ‗Predator Drone Attacks‘, New England Law Review 46 (2011), pp.27-36 (LEGAL) Jenks, Chris. ‗Law from above: unmanned aerial systems, use of force and the law of armed conflict‘,

North Dakota Law Review, 85 (2010), pp.649-671 http://ssrn.com/abstract=1569904 Mahadevan, Prem. ‗The Military Utility of Drones‘, CSS Analysis in Security Policy, ETH Zurich,

No.78, July 2010, 3pp, http://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:2252/eth-2252-01.pdf Paust, JORDAN J. ‗Self-Defense Targetings of Non-State Actors and Permissibility of US Use of

Drones in Pakistan‘, Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, 19/2 (2010), pp.237-280, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1520717

Perlman, Rebecca. ‗Targeted Killings: Does Drone Warfare Violate International Law?‘ Journal of Public and International Affairs (2011), pp.68-87, http://www.princeton.edu/jpia/past-issues-1/2011-1/JPIA2011-2.pdf#page=68

Thorp, Arabella. ‗Drone attacks and the killing of Anwar al-Awlaqi: legal issues, House of Commons, Standard Note 6165, 20 December 2011, 17pp, http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN06165.pdf

UK Ministry of Defence (Development, Concepts and Doctrine Centre), The UK Approach to Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Joint Doctrine Note 2/11, 30 March 2011, 102pp, http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F9335CB2-73FC-4761-A428-DB7DF4BEC02C/0/20110505JDN_211_UAS_v2U.pdf

Van Raemdonck, Nathalie. ‗Vested Interest or Moral Indecisiveness? Explaining the EU‘s Silence on the US Targeted Killing Policy in Pakistan‘, IAI Working Papers 12 | 05 (March 2012), Istituto Affari Internazionali, 23pp, http://www.iai.it/pdf/DocIAI/iaiwp1205.pdf

10. Security Challenges Posed by Intangibles (e.g. Knowledge, Information, Security

Culture) Topics: ‘intangibles’ vs. physical security; explicit and tacit knowledge; insider threats; establishing security culture; international cooperation to improve security Required reading: Donald MacKenzie and Graham Spinardi, 'Tacit Knowledge, Weapons Design,

and the Uninvention of Nuclear Weapons‗, The American Journal of Sociology, 101/1 (July 1995).

John V. Parachini, David E. Mosher, John Baker, Keith Crane, Michael Chase, Michael Daugherty, Diversion of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons Expertise from the Former Soviet Union: Understanding an Evolving Problem, RAND, National Security Research Division (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2005). http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/documented_briefings/2005/RAND_D B457.pdf

Scott D. Applegate, 'Social Engineering: Hacking the Wetware!', Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective (2009) 18: 1.

Center for International Trade and Security, University of Georgia, Nuclear Security Culture: the Case of Russia, December 2004, p.10, via NTI website, http://www.nti.org/c_press/analysis_cits_111804.pdf

Malcolm Dando, ‗The Dutch Experiment with a biosecurity code of conduct‗, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 19 March 2008.

Caitriona McLeish and Paul Nightingale, ‗Biosecurity, bioterrorism and the governance of science: The increasing convergence of science and security policy‗, Research Policy, 36 (2007)


18

Further reading: Murray E. Jennex and Suzanne Zyngier, 'Security as a contributor to knowledge management

success‗ in Information System Frontiers, 9/5 (November 2007) H. M. Collins, 'Tacit knowledge, trust and the Q o Sapphire‗, Social Studies of Science, 31/1

(February 2001). Office for Civil Nuclear Security, Finding a balance: guidance on the sensitivity of nuclear and

related information and its disclosure, April 2005, Issue 2, http://www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/ocns/balance.pdf

John Finney, 'Dual Use: Can we learn from the physicists‗ experience? A personal view‗, in B. Rappert and C. McLeish (eds) A Web of Prevention: Biological Weapons and the Governance of Research (London: Earthscan, 2007)

Nicholas G. Evans, 'Dual-Use Bioethics: The Nuclear Connection‗, Welcome Project Monograph, October 2010, p.9, http://www.brad.ac.uk/bioethics/media/SSIS/Bioethics/docs/NuclearSciencesW P.pdf

Brian Rappert, 'Codes of Conduct and Biological Weapons: An In-Process Assessment', Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science Volume 5, Number 2, 2007, pp. 1-10

7sswm021current issues in science and security …...2012/10/07 · 7sswm021current issues in...

Documents