s yllabus y yllabus - schar school of policy and …...appendix iii: instructor information and...

S Y L L A B U S y

S P R I N G 2 0 1 5

N U C L E A R , B I O L O G I C A L , A N D C H E M I C A L W E A P O N S P O L I C Y A N D S E C U R I T Y

G e o r g e M a s o n U n i v e r s i t y School of Policy, Government, and International Affairs

B I O D 7 0 6

Ins tructor: Cha rl es P. Blair

Vers io n 1 .1 1

OVERVIEW

Welcome to BIOD 706: “Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (NBC) Weapons Policy and Security.” Weekly topics and related assignments begin on the following pages. Please note:

Each week’s class summary possesses the table above. The table’s first row indicates the course’s 14 weekly classes; the second row offers related hyperlinks; row three indicates class dates; row four summarizes weekly content; graded assignments are found in row five; and row six offers hyperlinks to this document’s appendices.

The syllabus is subject to change. You will be notified of any alterations in the “Syllabus” section of Blackboard.

Announcements take place via Blackboard only. You are responsible for being aware of all the information contained in announcements.

Four appendices appear at the end of the syllabus. Read them thoroughly and remain mindful of their requirements; it is your responsibility to understand and act on these obligations.

Appendix I: Course Description

Appendix II: Course Materials, Assignments & Grading Metrics

Appendix III: Instructor Information and Important Numbers

Appendix IV: University Policies

1 BIOD 706: Syllabus, Version 1.1, last updated: January 9, 2015.

W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory

II: N Theory III: CW

Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Is Prolif. Inevitable

Prompt I Prompt II Prompt III Midterm Prompt IV Prompt V Present CW Present BW Present N Final

Appendix I: Course Description Appendix II: Materials, Assignments, and Grading Metrics



S y l l a b u s

2

WEEK 1 – January 26, 2015

T O P I C S : INTRODUCTIONS; COURSE OVERVIEW; AND SYMPOSIUM: WHAT IS

PROLIFERATION?

O v e r v i e w :

Our first class focuses on general introductions and a detailed overview of the course. Please prepare for our first symposium – a discussion that mandates your informed and ample participation – based on the readings below (symposium length ~ 40 minutes). You already received an announcement regarding Prompt 1. Note that the process of completing Prompt 1 largely prepares you for the symposium. I recommend that you bring to class a hard copy of the syllabus or that you have electronic access to it via laptop, etc.

O b j e c t i v e s :

By the end of this module you will be able to: • Assimilate the content and navigation of the course syllabus. • Comprehend how to navigate Blackboard vis-à-vis this course. • Become acquainted with weekly topics and requirements, including writing, reading

and viewing assignments (e.g., replies to Prompts); the midterm; course final; and grading metrics.

• Comprehend your role in leading symposiums and associated dates of responsibility. • Gain familiarity with your class colleagues. • Begin to appreciate the vast disparity of opinion with regard to the causes of state

adoption and non-adoption of nuclear weapons. R e m i n d e r s :

• Bring either a hard copy of the syllabus to class or arrange to have access via your personal electronic device.

• Your response to Prompt 1 is due no later than 01/25 by 9 PM (see Blackboard > Announcements and below). Note: this is one day before Week 1’s class.

W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Theory

I: N Theory


Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery






TOP / Home Links

3

• For extra credit, post your bio no later than 6 PM by 01/21 (see below). • This week – in class – we determine the class sessions you are responsible for vis-à-vis

symposium leadership. Week 2 symposium leaders: email me your proposed questions no later than 6 PM 01/31.

L e c t u r e s :

• Lecture 1.1: Course Overview

D e t e r m i n a t i o n s :

• Symposium weekly responsibilities A s s i g n m e n t s :

PROMPT 1: With regard to the first two readings below: Compare and contrast three primary arguments made by Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz to support their respective positions. Moreover, delineate and summarize the nuclear proliferation theories discussed by Tanya Ogilvie-White. Directions and More:

• Grade: Your response represents five (5) percent of your final grade. Grading metrics for your response to Prompts are available here.

• Length: ~950 words (no more than 1050 and no less than 900). • Due: No later than 01/25 by 9 PM. • Submission: Post to: Blackboard > Discussion Board > Prompt 1

EXTRA CREDIT:

BIOs: Please post a succinct bio to Blackboard (Blackboard > Discussion Board > BIOS). (Keep them ~ 400 words or less). Due no later than 01/21 by 6 PM. Extra credit points = 3

V i d e o :

NA

R e a d i n g s :

R E Q U I R E D

• Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2002), pp. 3-88.

⇒ Required Text

• Tanya Ogilvie-White, “Is there a Theory of Nuclear Proliferation? An Analysis of the Contemporary Debate,” The Nonproliferation Review (Fall 1996), pp. 43-57.

⇒ Available at: http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/ogilvi41.pdf

TOP / Home Links

http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/ogilvi41.pdf

4

• Richard M. Price, The Chemical Weapons Taboo (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997), pp. 1-43.

⇒ Required Text

TOP / Home Links

5

WEEK 2 – February 2, 2015

T O P I C S : THEORIES OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION I: REALISM AND NEOLIBERAL INSTITUTIONALISM

(NEOLIBERALISM)

O v e r v i e w :

This week we focus on two dominant (non)proliferation theories: realism (e.g., neorealism and neoclassical realism) and neoliberal institutionalism (hereafter neoliberalism). Last week’s readings of Kenneth Waltz introduced us to neorealism. We return to neorealism this week, examining, among other salient aspects, its latest incarnation: neoclassical realism. No Prompt this week. However, prepare for a student-led ~ 45 minute symposium on the readings. To grasp perceptions of why the U.S. developed its initial atomic bombs, and why it used them against civilian targets, this week also includes a viewing of Part I of The Day After Trinity (45 minutes).


By the end of this module you will be able to: • Recognize and cogently summarize salient attributes and key difference between

various forms of realism and neoliberalism. • Explain central facets of the Manhattan Project and a sample of views regarding the

impetus for the U.S. to initially develop nuclear weapons.

R e m i n d e r ( s ) :

• Week 2 student symposium leaders: email me your proposed questions by 6 PM 01/31.

L e c t u r e ( s ) :

• Lecture 1.1: The Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime

A s s i g n m e n t :

NA


CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory


Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery






TOP / Home Links

6

I n C l a s s V i d e o / F i l m :

The Day after Trinity, Part I (45 minutes). R e a d i n g s :

R E Q U I R E D

• Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions,” International Security, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Winter 1994-95), pp. 5-49.

⇒ Available on Blackboard > Readings > Week 2

• Gideon Rose, “Neoclassical Realism and Theories of Foreign Policy.” World Politics, Vol. 51, No.1 (1998), 144-172.


• Jeffrey W. Taliaferro, “State Building for Future Wars: Neoclassical Realism and the Resource-Extractive State,” Security Studies, Vol. 5, No. 3 (2006), 464-495.


• Richard Rosecrance, “Review: Unanswered Threats: Political Constraints on the Balance of Power,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 122 Issue 3 (Fall 2007), 512-514.



⇒ Required Text

A D D I T I O N A L S O U R C E S

• Charles P. Blair, “Nuclear Proliferation,” Encyclopedia of International Security (New

York: Sage Publishing, 2011). ⇒ Available on Blackboard > Readings > Week 2

• Charles P. Blair and Jean P. du Preez, “Visions of Fission: The Demise of Nuclear Negative Security Assurances on the Bush Administration’s Pentomic Battlefield,” Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 12, No 1, March 2005.

⇒ Available on Blackboard > Readings > Week 2 • Natasha E. Bajema, “Beyond the Security Model: Assessing the Capacity of

Neoclassical Realism for Forecasting Nuclear Proliferation,” in Potter and Mukhatzhanova eds., Forecasting Nuclear Proliferation in the 21st Century; Volume I, 71.

• John J. Mearsheimer, “Back to the Future: Instability in Europe after the Cold War,” International Security, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Summer, 1990).


TOP / Home Links

7

• Kenneth N. Waltz, “Structural Realism after the Cold War,” International Security, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Summer, 2000).


• Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone (NWFZ)

⇒ Available at: http://cns.miis.edu/nwfz_clearinghouse/index.htm

TOP / Home Links

http://cns.miis.edu/nwfz_clearinghouse/index.htm

8

WEEK 3: February 09, 2015

T O P I C : THEORIES OF NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION II:

DOMESTIC POLITICS MODEL AND APPROACHES VIA PSYCHOLOGY

O v e r v i e w :

Having investigated realism and neoliberalism with regard to (non)proliferation, we now turn to theories stemming from perceptions of domestic politics and psychology. We focus in part on the theoretic and applied works of EC Hymans. Our student-led symposium is drawn from readings covering both of these theoretical frameworks (~50 minutes). In addition to Prompt 2, also due this week, we watch part two of The Day of Trinity (45 minutes). Finally, this week you submit to me your agent and state selections for the Presentations and final (see below).


By the end of this module you will be able to: • Summarize primary attributes of (non)proliferation theory’s nexus with a domestic

politics model and two variants of psychology.

R e m i n d e r s :

• Your response to Prompt 2 (see below) is due no later than 02/08 by 9 PM. • Student symposium leaders: email me your proposed questions by 6 PM 02/07.


PROMPT 2: From this week’s readings: Summarize the theoretical frameworks advanced and/or explored by Sagan, Hymans, Solingen and Rublee. Additionally, delineate which of the six theories you think best explains nuclear proliferation. Identify why. Summarize why the five other theories were not selected.

Grade: Your response represents five (5) percent of your final grade. Grading metrics for your response to Prompts are available here.

W 1 W 2

W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory III: CW

Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery






TOP / Home Links

9

Length: ~1000 words (no more than 1050 and no less than 950). Due: No later than 02/08 by 9 PM. Submission: Post to: Blackboard > Discussion Board > Prompt 2

I n C l a s s V i d e o / F i l m : The Day after Trinity Part II (45 minutes).

R e a d i n g s :

R E Q U I R E D

• Scott Sagan, “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a Bomb,” International Security 1996 21: 63-85 [selected pages refer to Sagan’s sections on the “Domestic Model” and the “Norms Model”].


• William C. Potter and Gaukhar Mukhatzhanova, “Divining Nuclear Intentions,” International Security, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Summer 2008), pp. 139-169 [critique of Hymans and Solingen].


• Jacques EC Hymans, “North Korea's Nuclear Neurosis,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (May 2007) Vol. 63, No. 3, pp. 44-49. Available on Blackboard > Week 3 > Readings.


• Etel Solingen, Nuclear Logics: Contrasting Paths in East Asia and the Middle East (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007), pp. 3-53.

⇒ Available as an eBook. ⇒ Do Not Download ⇒ Available at:

http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=295551&site=ehost-live&scope=site

• Maria Rost Rublee, “Taking Stock of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Regime: Using Social Psychology to Understand Regime Effectiveness,” International Studies Review, Vol. 10 (2008), pp. 420-450.



⇒ Required Text

TOP / Home Links



10


• James J. Walsh, Dissertation: “Bombs Unbuilt: Power Ideas and Institutions in International Politics,” Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2001. Used with explicit consent of author (01/2015).

⇒ Available on blackboard > Readings > Week 3

• Jacques EC Hymans, Achieving Nuclear Ambitions: Scientists, Politicians, and Proliferation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012).

• Jacques EC Hymans, The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions and Foreign Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).

⇒ Available as an eBook ⇒ Do Not Download ⇒ Available at:

http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=149848&site=ehost-live&scope=site&ebv=EB&ppid=pp_C1

• Jacques EC Hymans, “No Cause for Panic: Key Lessons from the Political Science Literature on Nuclear Proliferation,” International Journal, Vol. 69, No 1 (2014), pp. 85-92.


TOP / Home Links




11


T O P I C : NUCLEAR & CHEMICAL WEAPONS PROLIFERATION:

CONSTRUCTIVISM & “NORMATIVE” STATE BEHAVIOR

O v e r v i e w :

This week we begin to move away from theories on proliferation explicitly linked to nuclear weapons (although not entirely). Focusing on constructivism and the “norms” model, we familiarize ourselves with chemical warfare (CW) agent and weapon acquisition histories, motivations, and uses via a variety of states. Based on the readings, our student-led symposium draws from these topics (~40 minutes).


By the end of this module you will be able to: • Summarize the requirements for selecting an agent (N, B, or C) and four state actors for

use in the midterm, presentations, and final (selections are due 02/23 by 6 PM). See below.

• Delineate and discuss the primary factors of constructivism’s application to (non)proliferation theory.

• Discuss the relationship between “normative” behavior and the “Chemical Weapons Taboo.”

• Broadly summarize the history of CW from World War I through 2000. • Compare and contrast the CW programs of Syria (up to the mid-1990s) and Libya.

R e m i n d e r s :

• This week has no Prompt; however, approximately one-half of next week’s Prompt relates to this week’s readings.

• Student symposium leaders: email me your proposed questions by 6 PM 02/14. • NBC and State selections are due no later than 6 PM 02/21.

L e c t u r e ( s ) :

W 1 W 2 W 3

W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory

II: N Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery






TOP / Home Links

12

• Lecture 4.1: CW Nonproliferation Regime


NA


“Chemical Secrets of the Iraq War,” (13 minutes). R e a d i n g s :

R E Q U I R E D

• Maria Rost Rublee, Nonproliferation Norms: Why States Choose Nuclear Restraint (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2009), 1-52. ⇒ Available as an eBook ⇒ Do Not Download ⇒ Available at:


• Zuhair Diab, Syria’s Chemical and Biological Weapons: Assessing Capabilities and Motivations, The Nonproliferation Review, Vol 5, No. 3 (Fall 1997), pp. 104-110. ⇒ Available at: http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/diab51.pdf

• Jonathan Tucker, “The Rollback of Libya’s Chemical Weapons Program,” The Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Fall 2009), pp. 363-382. ⇒ Available at

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10736700903255060

• Richard M. Price, The Chemical Weapons Taboo (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997), pp. 100-176. ⇒ Required class text.


• Scott Sagan, “Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons? Three Models in Search of a

Bomb,” International Security 1996 21: 73-84 [Sagan’s section on the “Norms Model”].


• Zoe Levornik, “Nuclear Dialogues: A Constructivist Approach to Nuclear Proliferation,” unpublished dissertation abstract, University of Haifa, School or Political Science/Division of International Relations (2015). Made available with author’s explicit consent. ⇒ Available on Blackboard > Readings > Week 4

TOP / Home Links



http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/diab51.pdf

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10736700903255060

13

• Nina Tannenwald, Stigmatizing the Bomb: Origins of the Nuclear Taboo, International Security, Vol.29, No. 4 (Spring 2005), pp.5-49


• Ariel E. Levite, “Never Say Never Again: Nuclear Reversal Revisited,” International Security, Vol. 27, No. 3 (Winter 2002/03).

• Jeffrey T. Checkel, The Constructivist Turn in International Relations Theory: Review, World Politics, Vol. 50, No. 2 (January 1998), pp. 324-348.

⇒ Available at: http://muse.jhu.edu.mutex.gmu.edu/journals/world_politics/v050/50.2er_finnemore.html

• Ted Hopf, “The promise of constructivism in international relations theory,” International Security (Summer, 1998), Vol.23, No. 1, pp.171-200

⇒ Available at: http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mth&AN=916371&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Syria

• “Syria, Chemical,” Nuclear Threat Initiative (Last updated August 2014). ⇒ Available at: http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/syria/chemical/

• Charles P. Blair, “Lesson Unlearned,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July 22, 2013. • Available at: http://thebulletin.org/ruinous-road-damascus-can-us-avoid-it

• Mary Beth D. Nikitin and Michael Moodie, “Syria's Chemical Weapons: Progress and Continuing Challenges,” Congressional Research Service, October 1, 2014. ⇒ Available at: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/IN10160.pdf

• Charles P. Blair, “A Ruinous Road to Damascus: Can the US avoid it?” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September 27, 2013. • Available at: http://thebulletin.org/ruinous-road-damascus-can-us-avoid-it

Iraq

• Iraq Survey Group final report: “Evolution of the Chemical Weapons Program,” pp., 5-13.

⇒ Available at http://www.ontheissues.org/transcripts/100604_iraq_survey_group_Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

• Iraq Faces Major Challenges in Destroying Its Legacy Chemical Weapons

⇒ Available at: http://cns.miis.edu/stories/100304_iraq_cw_legacy.htm

• “ISIS Seizes Former Chemical Weapons Plant in Iraq,” The Guardian, July 9, 2014.

TOP / Home Links

http://muse.jhu.edu.mutex.gmu.edu/journals/world_politics/v050/50.2er_finnemore.html

http://muse.jhu.edu.mutex.gmu.edu/journals/world_politics/v050/50.2er_finnemore.html

http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mth&AN=916371&site=ehost-live&scope=site

http://mutex.gmu.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=mth&AN=916371&site=ehost-live&scope=site

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/syria/chemical/

http://thebulletin.org/ruinous-road-damascus-can-us-avoid-it

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/IN10160.pdf

http://www.linkedin.com/redir/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthebulletin%2Eorg%2Fruinous-road-damascus-can-us-avoid-it&urlhash=5bPw&trk=prof-publication-title-link

http://thebulletin.org/ruinous-road-damascus-can-us-avoid-it

http://www.ontheissues.org/transcripts/100604_iraq_survey_group_Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

http://www.ontheissues.org/transcripts/100604_iraq_survey_group_Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf

http://cns.miis.edu/stories/100304_iraq_cw_legacy.htm

14

⇒ Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/isis-seizes-chemical-weapons-plant-muthanna-iraq

• “Iraq, Chemical,” Nuclear Threat Initiative (Last updated August 2014). ⇒ Available at: http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iraq/chemical/

Libya

• “Libya, Chemical,” Nuclear Threat Initiative (Last updated June 2014) ⇒ Available at: http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/libya/chemical/

Violent Non-State Actors

• Marc Sageman, Terrance Leighton, Lloyd Hough, Hidemi Yuki, Rui Kotani and Zachary M. Hosfor, “Aum Shinrikyo Insights into How Terrorists Develop Biological and Chemical Weapons,” Centers for a New American Security, December 2012, pp. 4-11, 29-42, and 48-54 ⇒ Available at:

http://www.cnas.org/files/documents/publications/CNAS_AumShinrikyo_SecondEdition_English.pdf

The Future of CW

• Jonathan Tucker, “Growing Together: Biological and Chemical Threats: The Convergence of Biology and Chemistry and its Implications for Arms Control,” Science Progress, February 2, 2011 ⇒ Available at: http://scienceprogress.org/2011/02/growing-together/

• Jonathan Tucker, “The Future of Chemical Weapons,” The New Atlantis (Fall 2009/Winter 2010). ⇒ Available at:

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20100316_TNA26Tucker.pdf

Chemical Weapons Convention • WMD 411: Eliminating Chemical Weapons: An Overview of the CWC.

⇒ Available at: http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f2o.html

• [Overview of the Chemical Weapons Convention] Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction (CWC), pp. 1-5. ⇒ Available at: http://cns.miis.edu/inventory/pdfs/cwc.pdf

Geneva Protocol

• Monterey’s James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies CNS), Text and Overview of the Geneva Protocol. ⇒ Available at: http://cns.miis.edu/inventory/pdfs/genev.pdf

• Nuclear Threat Initiative

TOP / Home Links

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/isis-seizes-chemical-weapons-plant-muthanna-iraq

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/09/isis-seizes-chemical-weapons-plant-muthanna-iraq

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/iraq/chemical/

http://www.nti.org/country-profiles/libya/chemical/



http://scienceprogress.org/2011/02/growing-together/

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20100316_TNA26Tucker.pdf

http://www.nti.org/f_wmd411/f2o.html

http://cns.miis.edu/inventory/pdfs/genev.pdf

15

1925, Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous, or Other Gasses, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (Geneva Protocol).

⇒ Summary and Text Available at: http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/protocol-prohibition-use-war-asphyxiating-poisonous-or-other-gasses-and-bacteriological-methods-warfare-geneva-protocol/

TOP / Home Links

http://www.nti.org/treaties-and-regimes/protocol-prohibition-use-war-asphyxiating-poisonous-or-other-gasses-and-bacteriological-methods-warfare-geneva-protocol/



16


T O P I C : PROLIFERATION AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

O v e r v i e w :

Having investigated a variety of nuclear and chemical (non)proliferation theories, we now turn to theoretical approaches to the (non)proliferation of biological warfare (BW) agents and weapons. Additionally, readings and the symposium (~35 minutes) examine South Africa’s grim NBC weapons related “Project Coast.” This week’s class also encompasses a viewing of: The Living Weapon (55 minutes).


By the end of this module you will be able to: • Specify and explain key current theoretical approaches to the (non)proliferation of BW

agents and weapons and technical knowhow. • Describe salient elements of the U.S. BW program and South Africa’s Project Coast.

R e m i n d e r s :

• Your response to Prompt 3 (see below) is due no later than 02/22 by 9 PM. • Student symposium leaders: email me your proposed questions by 6 PM 02/21. • Your midterm is due in three weeks – no later than 9 PM 03/15.


PROMPT 3: Delineate and compare last week’s theories on proliferation (explicit and implicit) with those found in this week’s readings and video (explicit and implicit). Include, but don’t limit your response to, the following:

• Do constructivist and other “normative” theories of nuclear and/or chemical weapon proliferation apply to biological weapons proliferation? Why or why not?

W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4

W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory


CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery






TOP / Home Links

17


Length: ~1100 words (no more than 1150 and no less than 1050). Due: No later than 02/22 by 9 PM. Submission: Post to: Blackboard > Discussion Board > Prompt 3


“The Living Weapon,” (55 minutes). R e a d i n g s :

R E Q U I R E D

• Sonia Ben Ouagrham-Gormley and Kathleen Vogel, “The Social Context Shaping Bioweapons (Non)proliferation” Biosecurity and Bioterrorism: Biodefense Strategy, Practice, and Science, vol. 8, no. 1 (March 2010): 9–24. ⇒ Available on Blackboard > Readings >Week 5

• Gregory D. Koblentz, “Regime Security: A New Theory for Understanding the Proliferation of Chemical and Biological Weapons,” Contemporary Security Policy, Vol. 34, No 3, (2013), pp. 501-525. ⇒ Available on Blackboard > Readings >Week 5

• Michael Lynch, “Protocols, Practices, and the Reproduction of Technique in Molecular Biology,” British Journal of Sociology 53 (June 2002), pp. 203-220. ⇒ Available on Blackboard > Readings >Week 5

• Susan Wright and David A. Wallace, “Secrecy in the Biotechnology Industry: Implications for the Biological Weapons Convention,” in Susan Wright ed., Biological Warfare and Disarmament: New Problems/New Perspectives (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002), pp. 369-390. Instructor Ebook request from Illiad. You will be updated on availability.

• Chandré Gould and Peter Folb, Project Coast: Apartheid’s Chemical and Biological Warfare Programme (Geneva, United Nations, 2002), pp. 1-21. • Available at: http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/project-coast-

apartheid-s-chemical-and-biological-warfare-programme-296.pdf

• Chandré Gould and Peter I. Folb, The South Chemical and Biological Warfare Program: An Overview,” The Nonproliferation Review, Vol. 7, No. 1 (Fall/Winter 2000), pp. 10-23. • Available at: http://dx.doi.org.mutex.gmu.edu/10.1080/10736700008436822

TOP / Home Links

http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/project-coast-apartheid-s-chemical-and-biological-warfare-programme-296.pdf

http://www.unidir.org/files/publications/pdfs/project-coast-apartheid-s-chemical-and-biological-warfare-programme-296.pdf

http://dx.doi.org.mutex.gmu.edu/10.1080/10736700008436822

18


• Charles P. Blair, “Nuclear Weapons and South Africa’s Project Coast,” working paper. ⇒ Available on Blackboard > Readings >Week 5

TOP / Home Links

19

WEEK 6: March 2, 2015

T O P I C :

SCIENCE AND CHEMICAL WARFARE

O v e r v i e w :

This week we begin our exploration of the sciences that underlie NBC agents and weapons, beginning with chemical weapons. Use the CW “learning aid” (Blackboard > Learning Aids) as you move through the readings and class (which includes a 30 minute symposium). Have a copy of the CW learning aid available for class (it’s an odd size; electronic access is recommended).


By the end of this week you will be able to: • Delineate six primary CW agent types and their respective sub-types. • Specify and explain the eight primary metrics useful in comparing and contrasting CW

agents and how such considerations might influence a state’s decision-making vis-à-vis CW.

• Summarize meteorological consideration vis-à-vis chemical delivery.

R e m i n d e r :

• Student symposium leaders: email me your proposed questions by 6 PM 02/28. • Next week is spring break. • The midterm is due no later than 9 PM 03/15.

L e c t u r e ( s ) :

• Lecture 6.1: Science and Chemical Warfare

A s s i g n m e n t s :

NA


W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5

W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory


Theory IV: BW

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery






TOP / Home Links

20

• GB (5 minutes) • VX (5 minutes) • CS (9 minutes)

L e a r n i n g A i d :

Table: CW Agents and Metrics

• Available on Blackboard > Learning Aids

R e a d i n g s :

R E Q U I R E D

• Jonathan Tucker, War of Nerves: Chemical Warfare from World War I to Al-Qaeda, pp. 9-23, 103-121, 158-189, 289-314, 351-374. Reserve access pending. You will be notified when access book sections are available.

• Charles P. Blair, “The Chemical Weapons of Syria,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (August 2013).

⇒ Available at: http://thebulletin.org/multimedia/chemical-weapons-syria

• Dana A. Shea, "Chemical Effects: A Summary of Characteristics and Effects," Congressional Research Service (CRS), September 13, 2013, pp. 1-15.

⇒ Available at: http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R42862.pdf

A D D I T I O N A L S O U R C E S Choking Agents • “Choking Agents,” in NATO Handbook on the Medical Aspects of NBC Defensive

Operations, Part III, Chemical, Chapter 4 (Washington, D.C.: Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, February 1, 1996). ⇒ Available at: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/fm8-

9/3ch4.htm

Vesicants/Blistering Agents2 • “Vesicants,” in Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare, (Borden Institute, Office of

The Surgeon General, AMEDD Center & School, US Army, 2008). ⇒ Available at:

https://ke.army.mil/bordeninstitute/published_volumes/chemwarfare/CH8_Pgs259-310.pdf

⇒ Also available on Blackboard > Readings > Week 6

2 “Vesicants” are also known as blistering agents.

TOP / Home Links

http://thebulletin.org/multimedia/chemical-weapons-syria

http://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R42862.pdf

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/fm8-9/3ch4.htm




21

• “Vesicants,” in NATO Handbook on the Medical Aspects of NBC Defensive Operations, Part III: Chemical, Chapter 3 (Washington, D.C.: Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, February 1, 1996).

⇒ Available at: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/fm8-9/3ch3.htm


Blood Agents • “Cyanide Poisoning,” in Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare, (Borden Institute,

Office of The Surgeon General, AMEDD Center & School, US Army, 2008). ⇒ Available at:

https://ke.army.mil/bordeninstitute/published_volumes/chemwarfare/Ch11_Pg_371-410.pdf

⇒ Also available on Blackboard > Readings > Week 6 • “Blood Agents,” NATO Handbook on the Medical Aspects of NBC Defensive

Operations, Part III: Chemical (Washington, D.C.: Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, February 1, 1996).


• "Environmental & Health Effects." International Cyanide Management Code

(ICMI) For The Manufacture, Transport and Use of Cyanide. N.p., n.d. Web. 01 April. 2014.

⇒ Available at: http://www.cyanidecode.org/cyanide-facts/environmental-health-effects

Nerve Agents • “Nerve Agents,” in Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare, (Borden Institute, Office

of The Surgeon General, AMEDD Center & School, US Army, 2008). ⇒ Available at:

http://www.cs.amedd.army.mil/borden/Portlet.aspx?id=d3d11f5a-f2ef-4b4e-b75b-6ba4b64e4fb2

⇒ Also available on Blackboard > Readings > Week 6 • “Nerve Agents,” NATO Handbook on the Medical Aspects of NBC Defensive

Operations, Part III: Chemical (Washington, D.C.: Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, February 1, 1996).


Incapacitating Agents

TOP / Home Links







http://www.cyanidecode.org/cyanide-facts/environmental-health-effects

http://www.cyanidecode.org/cyanide-facts/environmental-health-effects





22

• “Incapacitating Agents,” in Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare, (Borden Institute, Office of The Surgeon General, AMEDD Center & School, US Army, 2008).

⇒ Available at: https://ke.army.mil/bordeninstitute/published_volumes/chemwarfare/Ch12_pgs411-440.pdf

⇒ Also available on Blackboard > Readings > Week 6 • “Incapacitants,” NATO Handbook on the Medical Aspects of NBC Defensive

Operations, Part III: Chemical, Chapter 6 (Washington, D.C.: Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, February 1, 1996).


Riot Control Agents • “Riot Control Agents,” in Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare, (Borden Institute,

Office of The Surgeon General, AMEDD Center & School, US Army, 2008). ⇒ Available at:

https://ke.army.mil/bordeninstitute/published_volumes/chemwarfare/Ch13_Pg441_484.pdf


Herbicides • “Herbicides,” NATO Handbook on the Medical Aspects of NBC Defensive

Operations, Part III: Chemical, Chapter 9 (Washington, D.C.: Departments of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, February 1, 1996).


• “History of Chemical Warfare,” in Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare, (Borden Institute, Office of The Surgeon General, AMEDD Center & School, US Army, 2008).

⇒ Available at: https://ke.army.mil/bordeninstitute/published_volumes/chemwarfare/CHAP2_Pg_09-76.pdf


• “Chemical Weapons Technology,” in The Militarily Critical Technologies List Part II: Weapons of Mass Destruction Technologies (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Defense, 1998), sections: II-4-1 through I-4-37 (pp. 144-180)

⇒ Available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mctl98-2/mctl98-2.pdf

TOP / Home Links

https://ke.army.mil/bordeninstitute/published_volumes/chemwarfare/Ch12_pgs411-440.pdf

https://ke.army.mil/bordeninstitute/published_volumes/chemwarfare/Ch12_pgs411-440.pdf







https://ke.army.mil/bordeninstitute/published_volumes/chemwarfare/CHAP2_Pg_09-76.pdf

https://ke.army.mil/bordeninstitute/published_volumes/chemwarfare/CHAP2_Pg_09-76.pdf

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/mctl98-2/mctl98-2.pdf

23

• Potential Military Chemical/ Biological Agents and Compounds (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Chemical School, Field Manual FM 3-11.9, 2005), pp. 17-133 (I-4 through III-16).

⇒ Available at: http://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-11-9.pdf

• “Technical Aspects of Chemical Weapon Proliferation,” in Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction (Washington, D.C.: Office of Technical Assessment, U.S. Government, 1993), pp. 15-69.

⇒ Available at: http://fas.org/spp/starwars/ota/934404.pdf

http://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-11-9.pdf

http://fas.org/spp/starwars/ota/934404.pdf

24

W E E K 7 : March 16, 2015

T O P I C : H a n s K r i s t e n s e n &

M I D T E R M

O v e r v i e w :

Today’s class consists of a guest speaker – Hans Kristensen – and the midterm. Make sure to bring a Blue Book with you. Hans Kristensen is director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists.


MIDTERM:

• Your midterm to me, via email, no later than 03/15 by 9 PM.

R e a d i n g s :

In order to facilitate your preparation of the midterm, this week has no assigned readings.


CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory


Theory IV: BW

CW Science

BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery






TOP / Home Links

http://fas.org/author/hans-m-kristensen/

25


T O P I C :

SCIENCE AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

O v e r v i e w :

Through readings, a 30 minute symposium, a 40 minute video, and Prompt 4, this week’s class further addresses BW. Because the prerequisites for this course are BIOD 604 and BIOD 605, you already possess a sturdy grasp of primary BW agents. Consequently, we focus on these “agents in action:” the BW programs and selected agents of France, Japan, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States.


By the end of this module you will be able to: • Differentiate between the BW agents states pursued and in some employed against

human targets.

R e m i n d e r s :

• Your response to Prompt 4 (see below) is due no later than 03/22 by 9 PM. • Student symposium leaders: email me your proposed questions by 6 PM 03/21. • CW & States student presentations are in three weeks.


PROMPT 4: Compare and contrast five CW and five BW agents with regard to:

• Ease/difficulty of agent manufacture • Ease/difficulty of proper weaponization • Efficacy of agent against target (relative to operational goals). For example, all

other things being equal, if the operational goal is to generate a high number of casualties, C botulinum is a far better candidate for use than, say, the CW agent GB. The former is up to 100,000 times more lethal than that latter. However, all things are not equal; other factors come into play, e.g., those listed above (manufacture, delivery, etc.).


CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory


Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery






TOP / Home Links

26


Length: ~900 words (no less than 850 and no more than 1000). Due: No later than 03/22 by 9 PM. Submission: Post to: Blackboard > Discussion Board > Prompt 4

V i d e o ( s ) : “Unit 731: Two Versions of Hell” (2007) (28 minutes). “The Anthrax Diaries” (2011) (27 Minutes).

R e a d i n g s :

R E Q U I R E D

• Jeanne Guillemin, Biological Weapons: From the Invention of State-Sponsored Programs to Contemporary Bioterrorism (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006), pp. 40-111, 131-206. ⇒ Available as an eBook ⇒ Do Not Download ⇒ Available at:


A D D I T I O N A L R E S O U R C E S

• Uncle Fester, Silent Death, Revised and Expanded 2nd Edition (Port Townsend, WA:

Loompanics Unlimited, 1997). ⇒ Available on Blackboard > Readings > Week 8

TOP / Home Links



27


T O P I C :

SCIENCE AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS I

O v e r v i e w :

This week we explore the foundations for nuclear weapons: the nuclear fuel cycle and the basic principles of physics that enable fission and fusion. These essentials represent significant hurdles for would-be state nuclear proliferators to overcome. Assuming the surmounting of such obstacles, next week’s class explores the technological and tacit knowledge barriers impeding actual production of nuclear warheads. Additionally, one of this week’s videos addresses two of the consequences of nuclear weapon proliferation: cover-ups and nuclear fallout. Week 9 also includes a 20 minute symposium.


By the end of this module you will be able to: • Differentiate the 16 basic elements of the full nuclear fuel cycle. • Summarize the function of each step. • Explain the steps necessary to fuel a nuclear weapon with uranium (the “front end” of

the nuclear fuel cycle) and the discrete fuel cycle actions required to fuel a nuclear weapon with plutonium (the “back end” of the nuclear fuel cycle).

• Diagram each step into a visually cogent collective process: a diagram of the nuclear fuel cycle (see “Learning Aids” below).

R e m i n d e r s :

• Student symposium leader: email me your proposed questions by 6 PM 03/28. • CW & States student presentations are in two weeks. • BW & States student presentations are in three weeks. • N & States student presentations are in four weeks.

L e c t u r e :

• Lecture 9.1: The Nuclear Fuel Cycle; Fission; Fusion.

W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8

W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory


Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery






TOP / Home Links

28

L e a r n i n g A i d s :

Diagraming the nuclear fuel cycle: In conjunction with lecture 9.1, use the nuclear fuel cycle templates to fill in the cycle’s 16 steps (template available on Blackboard > Learning Aids). Start with the blank and then check your work with the completed template.


Using the blank template referenced above (“Learning Aids”), diagram each of the 16 steps in the full nuclear fuel cycle. Do this after you have done the readings.


“The World’s Biggest Bomb,” (45 minutes). “The Dragon that Slew St. George,” (29 minutes).

R e a d i n g s :

R E Q U I R E D

• World Nuclear Association, “The Nuclear Fuel Cycle,” (Updated October 2014) ⇒ Available at: http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf03.html


• Gary T. Gardner, “The Nuclear Fuel Cycle, in Nuclear Nonproliferation: A Primer (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1994), 11-23.

⇒ Available on Blackboard > Weekly Modules > Readings > Week 9

• “Introduction to Atomic Physics,” The National Science Digital Library, project for the National Science Foundation.

⇒ Take your time with this brief – yet excellent – tutorial ⇒ Available at: http://www.atomicarchive.com/Physics/Physics1.shtml

• Charles P. Blair, “Toward a Nuclear Weapon: Principles of Nuclear Energy,” in Gary Ackerman and Jeremy Tamsett, eds., Jihadists and Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Growing Threat (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2009), pp. 232-238.

⇒ Available on Blackboard > Weekly Modules > Readings > Week 9

• Jeremy Bernstein, Plutonium: A History of the World’s Most Dangerous Element (Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press, 2007), pp. 1-90.

⇒ Available as an eBook ⇒ DO NOT DOWNLOAD ⇒ Available at:

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/georgemason/detail.action?docID=10170918

TOP / Home Links

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf03.html

http://www.atomicarchive.com/Physics/Physics1.shtml

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/georgemason/detail.action?docID=10170918

29

W E E K 1 0 : A p r i l 6 , 2 0 1 5

T O P I C :

SCIENCE AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS II

O v e r v i e w :

Last week we established a basic understanding of the nuclear fuel cycle. Consequently we can explore the technologies underlying nuclear weapons, their effects, and current arsenals. This week we have a 30 minute symposium and full length film. Note that Prompt 5 is due this week and next week we begin our student presentations.


By the end of this module you will be able to: • Summarize the workings of, and differences between, “simple” & boosted fission

nuclear weapons as well as thermonuclear weapons. • Delineate the technological hurdles for each class of weapon noted above.

R e m i n d e r s :

• Turn Prompt 5 in this week – no later than 9 PM 04/05. • CW & States student presentations are in one week. • BW & States student presentations are in two weeks. • Nuclear Weapons & States student presentation are in three weeks

L e c t u r e :

• Lecture 10.1: Nuclear Weapons


PROMPT 5: Select one or two responses from Prompt 4. Do you agree with the authors’ choices / reasoning? Why or why not?


W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9

W 10

W 11 W 12 W 13 W 14 CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory


Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery






TOP / Home Links

TOP / Home Links

30

Length: ~900 words (no less than 850 and no more than 1000). Due: No later than 04/05 by 9 PM. Submission: Post to the original response: Blackboard > Discussion

Board > Prompt 5

V i d e o ( s ) : I n C l a s s V i d e o / F i l m :

“The Atomic Cafe,” 85 minutes. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssKiI1P3lT4

R e a d i n g s :

R E Q U I R E D

• Nuclear weapons effects calculator. (Note that it is also available in 3-D (right-hand corner). For one round, I recommend you select Washington, D.C. and then the Tsar Bomb (at 50 Mt). Note that the radius for 3rd degree burns extends beyond Baltimore. ⇒ Available at: http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap3d/

• Effects of Nuclear War (Washington D.C., Office of Technology Assessment: 1979), pp. 15-35. ⇒ Available at: http://atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf

• Office of Technology Assessment, Technologies Underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction OTA-BP-ISC-115 (Washington DC: U.S. GPO, December 1993), 119-196.

⇒ Available at: http://ota.fas.org/reports/9344.pdf • J. Carson Mark, Frank von Hippel, Edward Lyman, "Explosive Properties of Reactor-

Grade Plutonium," Science & Global Security 17, no. 2-3 (2009): 170-185. ⇒ Available at: http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs17mark.pdf


• Samuel Glasstone and Philip J. Dolan, “Descriptions of Nuclear Explosions,” in The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Third Edition (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1977), pp. 26-43.

⇒ Available at: http://www.ciar.org/ttk/hew/nukeffct/enw77.htm

• Owen R. Cote, Jr., Excerpt from Avoiding Nuclear Anarchy: Containing the Threat of Loose Russian Nuclear Weapons and Fissile Material, by Graham T. Allison, Owen R. Cote, Jr., Richard A. Falkenrath, and Steven E. Miller, Appendix B: A Primer on Fissile Materials and Nuclear Weapon Design. ⇒ Available at:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/nukes/readings/appendixb.html

• Tactical Nuclear Weapons – Globally, 2012 Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons, 2012, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2012).

⇒ Available at: http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/5/96.full.pdf+html

TOP / Home Links

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssKiI1P3lT4

http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap3d/

http://atomicarchive.com/Docs/pdfs/7906.pdf

http://ota.fas.org/reports/9344.pdf

http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs17mark.pdf

http://www.ciar.org/ttk/hew/nukeffct/enw77.htm



http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/5/96.full.pdf+html

31

• US Nuclear Forces 2014 Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, “US Nuclear Forces, 2014,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2014).


Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, “US tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, 2011,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2014).

⇒ Available at: http://bos.sagepub.com/content/67/1/64.full.pdf+html

• Russian Nuclear Forces 2013 Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, Russian Nuclear Forces, 2014, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2013).

⇒ Available Blackboard > Readings > Week 10

• British Nuclear Forces 1953-2013 Robert S. Norris, and Hans M. Kristensen, “The British nuclear stockpile, 1953–2013,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2013).


• French Nuclear Forces 2008 Robert S. Norris, “French nuclear forces, 2008.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2008).

• Available at: http://bos.sagepub.com/content/64/4/52.full.pdf+html

• Chinese Nuclear Forces 2013 Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, “Chinese nuclear forces, 2011,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2013).


• Israeli Nuclear Forces 2014 Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, “Israeli Nuclear Weapons, 2014,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2014).

⇒ Available on Blackboard > Readings > Week 10 • Indian Nuclear Forces 2012

Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, “Indian nuclear forces, 2012,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2012).


• Pakistan’s Nuclear Forces 2011 Hans M. Kristensen and Robert S. Norris, “Pakistan’s nuclear forces, 2011,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (2011).


TOP / Home Links






32

WEEK 11: August 12, 2015

T O P I C :

STUDENT PRESENTATIONS: CW

O v e r v i e w :

This class encompasses 3-4 presentations addressing CW (non)proliferation theories and their intersection with specific states. A 10-15 minute class discussion follows each 25-30 minute presentation.


By the end of this module – or during class presentations – you should be able to: • Listen attentively and ask cogent questions and/or offer valuable feedback to the

presenters. • Summarize each CW related presentation.

R e m i n d e r s :

• BW & States presentations are next week. • Nuclear Weapons & States presentations are in two week. • Submit your final by 7 PM May 9.

R e a d i n g s :

In order to allow you plenty of time for preparation of your presentation and final paper, currently this week has no reading assignments.

W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10

W 12 W 13 W 14 CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory


Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery






TOP / Home Links

33

WEEK 12: April 22, 2015

T O P I C :

STUDENT PRESENTATIONS: BW

O v e r v i e w :

This class encompasses 3-4 presentations addressing BW (non)proliferation theories and their intersection with specific states. A 10-15 minute class discussion follows each 25-30 minute presentation.



presenters. • Summarize each BW related presentation.

R e m i n d e r s :

• Nuclear presentations are next week. • Submit your final by 7 PM May 9.

R e a d i n g s

In order to allow you plenty of time to prepare your presentation and to research and write your final paper, currently this week has no reading assignments.

W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12

W 13 W 14 CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory


Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery






TOP / Home Links

34

WEEK 13: April 27, 2015

T O P I C : STUDENT PRESENTATIONS: NUCLEAR

O v e r v i e w :

This class encompasses 3-4 presentations addressing nuclear (non)proliferation theories and their intersection with specific states. A 10-15 minute class discussion follows each 25-30 minute presentation.



presenters. • Summarize each nuclear related presentation.

R e m i n d e r s :

• Submit your final by 7 PM May 9. R e a d i n g s :

In order to allow you plenty of time to prepare your presentation and to research and write your final paper, currently this week has no reading assignments.

W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13

W 14 CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory


Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery






TOP / Home Links

35

WEEK 14: May 4, 2015

T O P I C :

COURSE CONCLUSION: IS PROLIFERATION INEVITABLE?

O v e r v i e w :

Symposium discussion: Is proliferation inevitable? (Symposium length ~ 60 minutes.) O b j e c t i v e s :

By the end of this module you should be able to: • Summarize and critically assess salient aspects of all major course components (e.g.,

[non]proliferation theories, science and NBC, student presentations, etc.).

R e m i n d e r s : • Email me your final paper (in Microsoft Word) no later than 05/09 by 7 PM. • Student symposium leader: email me your topics by 6 PM 05/02.


You final paper is due this week.

Grade: Your response represents twenty- five (25) percent of your final grade. Instructions and grading metrics for the final are available here.

Due: No later than 7 PM May 9. Submission: Email your final (in Microsoft Word) to:

[email protected] R e a d i n g s :

TBD

W 1 W 2 W 3 W 4 W 5 W 6 W 7 W 8 W 9 W 10 W 11 W 12 W 13

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 Intro Theory

I: N Theory


Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery





TOP / Home Links

36

A P P E N D I C E S

APPENDIX I: COURSE PREREQUISITS BIOD 704 and 705 COURSE DESCRIPTION

This course explores the causes, conduct, and consequences of the (non)proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons (NBC). Moreover, it covers the historical, technological, normative, and strategic factors that have promoted and restrained the spread of these weapons. Explored as well are the motives for states to develop, or eschew, these weapons and the debate over the security implications of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapon proliferation.


CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory


Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery



Appendix I: Appendix II: Materials, Assignments, and Grading Metrics



TOP / Home Links

37

APPENDIX II: MATERIALS, ASSIGNMENTS, AND METRICS REQUIRED TEXTS:

• Richard M. Price, The Chemical Weapons Taboo (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1997).

• Scott D. Sagan and Kenneth N. Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 2002). (Second Edition)

⇒ Note: this course calls for the second edition (2002), not the third. LATE ASSIGNMENTS: INSTRUCTOR’S POLICY

You are welcome to turn assignments in late. The penalty is a 10 percent daily subtraction from the maximum score possible. If the assignment is turned in the day it is due but, after the assigned time, it is automatically considered one day late (i.e., 10 percent is subtracted). After 24 hours, it is considered two days late (i.e., 20 percent is subtracted), etc.

A NOTE ON WORKLOAD

The reading load for this course is fairly heavy. I appreciate that many students work demanding jobs and that it may be difficult to complete all of the reading for each week. The goal for the weekly workload for the course is 8 to 9 hours, with about 75 percent of your time devoted to reading and 25 percent of your time devoted to writing. That means you should plan to be reading somewhere between 5 and 6.5 hours each week. With regard to any week you might fall behind in the readings: as long as you are able to provide high quality responses to the Prompts, or symposiums, or both, and I can tell you are engaging the guts of the readings, I won’t ask you how many pages you read!


CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory


Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery






TOP / Home Links

38

GRADING METRICS

FINAL GRADE BASED ON SIX DIFFERENT ELEMENTS, TOTALING 103 POINTS • Extra Credit Bio (due 01/21): 3 points • Class Participation and Student-led Symposium (10 & 10 points): 20 points • Replies to Prompts; five total (four required, each worth five points): 20 points • Midterm – Annotated Bibliography (due 03/15): 20 points • Presentation: 15 points • Final: Research Paper (~15 pages – due 05/09): 25 points

LETTER GRADES & POINTS

100 -94 points = A

93 - 90 points = A-

89 - 87 points = B+

86 - 84 points = B

83 - 80 points = B-

79 - 77 points = C+

76 - 74 points = C

73 - 70 points = C-

69 and below F

ASSIGNMENTS/ASSESSMENTS:

1. Replies to Prompts • Overview

Collectively, replies to Prompts equal a maximum of 20 points. Replies to Prompts are straight-forward. For five of the fourteen weeks, I supply a question(s) with regard to the current (and/or previous) week’s subject matter (e.g., readings, lectures, videos, etc.). Along with the Prompt question, students find the word count and, at times, examples of how one might address the Prompt. Student replies are posted to Blackboard (Blackboard > Discussion Board > Prompts). Note that I drop the lowest Prompt reply score (thus, students can forego one Prompt entirely – reply to only four Prompts).

Replies are due on the following dates (all by 9 PM the day before the scheduled class):

Prompt 1: Week 1 (01/25)

TOP / Home Links

39

Prompt 2: Week 3 (02/08) Prompt 3: Week 5 (02/22) Prompt 4: Week 8 (03/22) Prompt 5: Week 10 (04/05)

• Scoring & Criteria

In sum, responses to Prompts equal up to 20 points. Each Prompt has a maximum of 5 points. 5 Points:

⇒ Excellent post; sharp insight (reflecting all relevant readings, lecture[s], and other material for that week); articulate; superior writing ability; post is an example for others to follow.

4 Points: ⇒ Good post (reflects almost all relevant readings, lectures[s], and

other material for that week); thoughts are clearly written; solid execution.

3 Points: ⇒ Satisfactory post (reflects some of the relevant readings, lecture[s],

and other material for that week); post communicates at generally acceptable level; displays passable understanding of that week’s concepts; average work.

2 Points: ⇒ Quality of post is below average and largely unacceptable.

1-0 Points: ⇒ Quality of post is entirely unacceptable.

2. Participation

Largely managed as a seminar, this course requires extensive – and informed – student participation and leadership. Participation is broken into two sections – collectively they total 20 percent of your final grade.

A. GENERAL PARTICIPATION

• Scoring & Criteria Participation equals a maximum of 10 points. 10 Points:

⇒ Student asks informed/thoughtful questions and/or expresses a viewpoint of relevant data/information/insights during each class. Student helps “keep the class going.”

8-9 Points: ⇒ Same as above but with less frequency (minimal verbal engagement

in 1-2 classes).

TOP / Home Links

40

6-7 Points: ⇒ Silence or minimal verbal engagement in 3-4 classes.

5 Points: ⇒ Silence or minimal verbal engagement in 5 classes.

4 Points and Under: ⇒ Silence or minimal verbal engagement in 6 classes … and so on…

B. STUDENT-LED SYMPOSIUMS • Overview

Your symposium leadership totals a maximum of 10 points. Symposiums occur the following weeks (possibly more):

Week 1 (instructor led) Week 2 (2-3 student leaders: TBD) Week 3 (2-3 student leaders: TBD) Week 4 (2-3 student leaders: TBD) Week 5 (2-3 student leaders: TBD) Week 6 (2-3 student leaders: TBD) Week 8 (2-3 student leaders: TBD) Week 9 (2-3 student leaders: TBD) Week 10 (1 student leader: TBD) Week 14 (2 student leaders: TBD)

Each student is responsible for leading a portion of the symposium on two of the above week. We will determine what those weeks are during class 1. Depending on the week, student leaders email me a list of their four proposed questions 48 hours before the respective class (by 6PM). When applicable, questions are separate from that week’s Prompt (i.e., they do not repeat the substance of the Prompt; they are original). If deemed inadequate, after notification by me, students resubmit question(s) within 24 hours of class.

• Scoring & Criteria 10 Points:

⇒ All four questions reflect a thoughtful understanding of the subject matter (e.g., they don’t ask the mundane unless it is couched in a question of greater salience).

⇒ Thought-provoking questions (your questions need to stimulate dialogues that lasts ~ 30 minutes).

⇒ Submitted on time (i.e., within 48) and, if deemed inadequate, resubmitted on time (i.e., within 24 hours).

TOP / Home Links

41

⇒ When necessary, input to keep the symposium focused on the topic(s) or to rejuvenate dwindling discussions.

8-9 Points ⇒ Same as above but less thoughtful and/or provocative questions.

Anything below ⇒ Unacceptable. Questions will be returned until they reflect higher

standards. If such benchmarks cannot be met, student receives a “0”.

3. Midterm

Formally exploring eight scholarly sources, the midterm is an annotated bibliography (AB). Due no later than 9 PM 03/15, the midterm equals a maximum of 20 points.

• Overview During Week 4-5 you make selections relevant to your midterm, presentation, and final. First, you identify four states for potential inclusion in your upcoming research. Moreover, we finalize your NBC selection (N, B, or C). The midterm focuses on four states and their relationship to your NBC agent/weapon: it explores and ultimately determines which two states – out of the four – are likely to yield the greatest amount of useful information vis-à-vis theories behind adoption / non adoption and their nexus with your agent choice.

Directions for selection: First: Select N, C, or B with regard to (non)proliferation and technology. Additionally, select a backup.

Second: Select six states (in order of preference) from the following: Argentina, Australia (N only), China, France, Germany, India (N and C only), Iraq, Iran, Israel, Japan (N only), Libya (C and N only), North Korea, Pakistan (N only), Saudi Arabia (N only), South Africa, South Korea (N only), Soviet Union/Russia, Taiwan (N only), Turkey (N only), Ukraine (N only), United Kingdom, and the United States. Don’t see a country you are interested in? Let me know. Email me your selections no later than 6 PM 02/21 (i.e., N, B, or C – along with a backup – and six states).

TOP / Home Links

42

Constructed as an annotated bibliography and focusing on our four state choices (taken from the six your provided), the midterm summarizes eight relevant primary or otherwise highly reliable secondary sources dealing with your finalized NBC and state selections. Note that the AB example (Blackboard > Midterm) does not directly relate to this class (e.g., it doesn’t explicitly address states). However, the example demonstrates solid sources as well as how to summarize scholarly references. Informed via this exploration of relevant sources, at the end of this exercise you are able to finalize which two of your four states will form the basis of your presentation and final.

• Single spaced (not double). • Times New Roman, 12 font. • For mandatory editing, style, and writing guidelines see:

Blackboard > Midterm > Editing and Writing Guidelines for CBRN

• Directions Two of the state selections deals with N, B, or C adoption. Two state selections address N, B, or C non-adoption or disarmament. Thus, four of the eight sources summarized in the AB examine relevant state adoption, four sources explore relevant state non-adoption.

⇒ Submit your midterm to me no later than 9 PM 03/15. ⇒ Research each state in a scholarly fashion. ⇒ Consult as many potential sources as necessary. ⇒ Ultimately narrow your selections to eight sources.

Sources cannot replicate assigned class readings. All eight final sources must deal with the four specific states

in question. At least two sources address each state. Selected sources must be primary (e.g., transcripts,

government documents, your personal interviews with relevant experts, etc.), and/or secondary (peer reviewed journal articles, and/or reports from credible – non-partisan – think tanks). I highly recommend the use of primary sources.

⇒ Having narrowed your search down to eight sources, carefully write up your AB (example of sources and summarization: Blackboard > Midterm).


The midterm equals a maximum of 20 points. 18-20 Points:

TOP / Home Links

43

⇒ An AB reflecting an extensive exploration of scholarly sources. Cogently written and utilizing two or more primary sources, the AB demonstrates that a wide variety of potential sources were consulted before final – highly topical – selections were made. An example for other to follow.

14-17 Points: ⇒ An AB possessing basic – low-hanging – sources; average writing;

reflecting some exploration of a broader set of sources than just the eight ultimately used.

10-13 Points: ⇒ An AB largely devoid of scholarly sources; average or below average

writing; more akin to a poorly researched draft. 10 points and under:

⇒ An unacceptable AB.

4. Presentation • Overview

Presentations equal a maximum of 15 points. During weeks 11, 12, or 13, students give a 25-30 minute presentation on a selected topic that directly relates to the midterm. Specifically, presentations continue to use your agent/weapons (N, B, or C) selection. Additionally, presentations also address the two states finalized via the midterm. In short, your presentation has two broad components:

1. Describe why and how you selected your two states from the original four. Why were the other two ultimately rejected?

2. With your final two states, illustrate and apply at least two (non)proliferation theories to each. Moreover, explore the technical aspects of the agent in question (N, B, or C) and how it influenced your decision-making vis-à-vis going from four states to two and applying adoption and non-adoption to the latter.

For example: Libya and South Africa, CW agents and weapons, and (non)proliferation. This combination also forms the basis of your final, discussed next. After exploring how you went from four states to two, your presentation focuses on two areas: why Libya and South Africa adopted or ultimately eschewed chemical weapons and the technological hurdles they faced in developing (or failing to develop) specific chemical warfare agents. In short, you address the (non)proliferation aspects of your given state and agent(s) (e.g., realism, domestic political theory, constructivism, etc.) and you also examine the technical underpinnings of those agent(s) vis-à-vis the state in question. Your presentation should explore two or more (non)proliferation theories.

TOP / Home Links

44

Utilize any multi-media platforms you think will capture your audiences’ attention and cogently inform them about your research. Obviously PowerPoint works, but feel free to add other platforms. Note: The presentation reflects your research in its unfinalized form. In other words, you present on what you’re currently doing and what you’ve learned up to this point; your research is still ongoing. Later, you will conclude your research and thinking – this is the basis of the final.


Worth a maximum of 15 points, scoring metrics are as follows: 14-15 Points:

⇒ Well thought out, prepared, and delivered. Cogent, topical, insightful, and educational.

12-13 Points: ⇒ Research, planning and/or execution are effective but lack the

degree of insight, polish, and other elements noted above. 8-11 Points:

⇒ A poorly researched, planed, and / or executed presentation. While some areas make sense and capture some of the elements above, overall the presentation is lacking.

7 points and under: ⇒ An unacceptable and grim experience.

5. Final • Introduction

Your final is due no later than 7 PM 05/09. Research for the presentation forms the basis of your final: a ~15 page research paper. The final equals a maximum of 25 points.

• (Nonproliferation theory, technical and policy assessment of your two states: adoption and non-adoption.

o Using theory, explain why one state adopted your given agent / weapon while your other state practices non-adoption or disarmament.

o Review the technical underpinning of your agent / weapon broadly and how it specifically relates to your two states.

o Extrapolate and delineate what the above might mean to policy maker and analysts.

• Double spaced • Times New Roman

TOP / Home Links

45

• Footnotes, not endnotes • Bibliography is not necessary; however, if you choose to include

one it is not considered part of the ~15 page requirement • For mandatory editing, style, and writing guidelines see:

Blackboard > Final > Editing and Writing Guidelines for CBRN


Worth a maximum of 25 points, scoring metrics are as follows:

24-25 Points (A): ⇒ A paper would earn an A (24-25 points) if it had the attributes of an

A- paper and used transition-markers to guide the reader from one thought or sub-theme to another. This paper would mainly employ active verbs and would eschew “is” and “are” as verbs unless these verbs can most directly help you express the thought in a sentence. In essence, this paper would require minimal editing to put it into publishable form.

23 Points (A-): ⇒ A paper would earn an A- (22-23 points) if it had the attributes of a

B+ paper and employed strong topic sentences for the opening of each paragraph. This paper would have a clear organizational structure that would compel the reader to understand your arguments and conclusions.

22 Points (B+): ⇒ This paper would earn a B+ (20-21 points) if it had the attributes of a

B paper yet used more outside references from authoritative sources, especially but not exclusively from government documents and scientific reports as well as from scholars writing in magazines, journals, books and, possibly, blogs. Moreover, such a paper would have more counterarguments to the topic. This paper primarily uses active voice, that is, a writing style that does not obscure the subject of a sentence.

21 Points (B): ⇒ A paper would earn a B (21 points) if it had the attributes of a B-

paper and honestly addressed a few counterarguments to the topic. This paper would use a variety of references of outside sources (those not used or identified in class).

20 Points (B-): ⇒ A paper would earn a B- (20 points) if it provided a well-formulated

and identifiable topic. Such a paper would support the topic with analysis based on factual evidence. This paper would offer some analysis of technical issues. This paper would use passive voice extensively. (Note: use of passive voice is discouraged.)

TOP / Home Links

46

0-19 Points (C + - F)

⇒ From barely acceptable to toxic rubbish.

TOP / Home Links

47

APPENDIX III: LINKS, NAMES, NUMBERS, OFFICE HOURS, ETC.

Course: Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons Policy and Security (BIOD 706) Instructor: Charles P Blair

Email: [email protected] Cell: 202 510 2802 Office Hours: TBD BIO: http://advanced.jhu.edu/about-us/faculty/charles-p-blair/

Blackboard: https://mymasonportal.gmu.edu Academic Calendar: http://registrar.gmu.edu/calendars/spring-2015/ Weather Emergency Phone Line: 703-993-1000 (“The announcement will be made on the

university switchboard and the University’s web site.” Emergency Notices Web Page: http://esgwebproxy.johnshopkins.edu/notice/

Mason Alert Emergency Notification System: http://ready.gmu.edu/masonalert/


CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory


Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery



Appendix I: Course Description Appendix II: Materials, Assignments, and Grading Metrics Appendix III


TOP / Home Links

http://advanced.jhu.edu/about-us/faculty/charles-p-blair/

https://mymasonportal.gmu.edu/

http://registrar.gmu.edu/calendars/spring-2015/

http://www.gmu.edu/

http://esgwebproxy.johnshopkins.edu/notice/

http://ready.gmu.edu/masonalert/

48


Academic Integrity Students must be responsible for their own work, and students and faculty must take on the responsibility of dealing explicitly with violations. This tenet must be a primary pillar of our university culture. [See http://oai.gmu.edu/ ]. Honor Code Students must adhere to the guidelines of the George Mason University Honor Code [See http://www.gmu.edu/academics/catalog/9798/honorcod.html ]. MasonLive/Email Students are responsible for the content of university communications sent to their George Mason University email account and are required to activate their account and check it regularly. All communication from the university, college, school, and program will be sent to students solely through their Mason email account. [See https://masonlivelogin.gmu.edu/login ]. Students with Disabilities Students with disabilities who seek accommodations in a course must be registered with the George Mason University Office of Disability Services (ODS) and inform their instructor, in writing, at the beginning of the semester [See http://ods.gmu.edu]. University Libraries University Libraries provides resources for distance students. [See http://library.gmu.edu/distance]. Writing Center The George Mason University Writing Center staff provides a variety of resources and services (e.g., tutoring, workshops, writing guides, and handbooks) intended to support students as they work to construct and share knowledge through writing. [See http://writingcenter.gmu.edu]. Counseling and Psychological Services The George Mason University Counseling and Psychological Services (CAPS) staff consists of


CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

CLICK HERE

01/26 02/02 02/09 02/16 02/23 03/02 03/16 03/23 03/30 04/06 04/13 04/20 04/27 05/04 Intro Theory

I: N Theory


Theory IV: BW

CW Science

Guest BW Science

Nuclear Science I

Nuclear Science II

Student Delivery

Student Delivery

Student Delivery





TOP / Home Links

http://oai.gmu.edu/

http://www.gmu.edu/academics/catalog/9798/honorcod.html

https://masonlivelogin.gmu.edu/login

http://ods.gmu.edu/

http://library.gmu.edu/distance

http://writingcenter.gmu.edu/

49

professional counseling and clinical psychologists, social workers, and counselors who offer a wide range of services (e.g., individual and group counseling, workshops and outreach programs) to enhance students' personal experience and academic performance [See http://caps.gmu.edu or call (703) 993-2380]. Student Privacy The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA), also known as the "Buckley Amendment," is a federal law that gives protection to student educational records and provides students with certain rights. [See http://registrar.gmu.edu/privacy]. Email Mason uses only Mason email accounts to communicate with enrolled students. Students must activate their Mason email account, use it to communicate with their department and other administrative units, and check it regularly for important university information including messages related to this class.

University Catalog University Catalog http://catalog.gmu.edu, is the central resource for university policies affecting student, faculty, and staff conduct in university academic affairs. Other policies are available at http://universitypolicy.gmu.edu/. All members of the university community are responsible for knowing and following established policies.

Other Considerations If there are any issues related to religious holidays, please inform me the first week of class.

TOP / Home Links

http://caps.gmu.edu/

http://registrar.gmu.edu/privacy

http://catalog.gmu.edu/

http://universitypolicy.gmu.edu/

s yllabus y yllabus - schar school of policy and …...appendix iii: instructor information and...

Documents