2008 Woodie Awards
Kenneth Waltz Addresses the YU Community on Nuclear Proliferation
Josh Vogel
Issue date: 12/27/04 Section: News
- Page 1 of 2 next >
On Wednesday, December 15, Dr. Kenneth Waltz, professor of international relations at Columbia University, addressed the Yeshiva community on the topic of Nuclear Proliferation. The event, sponsored by the Rabbi Arthur Schneier Center for International Affairs, attracted over fifty students and included faculty and administration. Waltz's address included discussions related to nuclear warfare theory, history, and, nuclear proliferation today. Following his presentation, Waltz entertained questions from the audience for nearly an hour.
Waltz argued that nuclear warheads are used only as a deterrent to conventional warfare, and not as a threat of offensive capabilities, as many assume in toady's world. Waltz also noted that even if a country with nuclear capabilities would be invaded, which has never happened in the 50 years of nuclear existence, that country would be reluctant to use its missiles unless the country's vital interests were being threatened. At the end of the speech he noted that nuclear warfare, as opposed to conventional warfare, has a clear winner, since the victim is virtually destroyed.
Waltz though also provided insightful analysis of the history of nuclear buildup, especially regarding the nuclear programs developed by the United States and Russia. According to Waltz, both countries only acquired and built warheads as "second-strike options;" if one country was to attack another with nuclear weapons, the victimized country would want the nuclear capabilities as a means of vengeance. As a result, he argued, America and Russia stockpiled thousands of warheads during the Cold War.
Following his remarks on the history of nuclear proliferation, Waltz turned his attention to the relationship between nuclear programs and the war in Iraq. If Iraq did indeed have nuclear capabilities, suggested Waltz, then the whole war would have changed since detailed operations would have been needed to disarm the fleet. "Since the intelligence situation at the time was not optimal," Waltz said, "the outcome of the decision to invade or not may have been very different."
Waltz argued that nuclear warheads are used only as a deterrent to conventional warfare, and not as a threat of offensive capabilities, as many assume in toady's world. Waltz also noted that even if a country with nuclear capabilities would be invaded, which has never happened in the 50 years of nuclear existence, that country would be reluctant to use its missiles unless the country's vital interests were being threatened. At the end of the speech he noted that nuclear warfare, as opposed to conventional warfare, has a clear winner, since the victim is virtually destroyed.
Waltz though also provided insightful analysis of the history of nuclear buildup, especially regarding the nuclear programs developed by the United States and Russia. According to Waltz, both countries only acquired and built warheads as "second-strike options;" if one country was to attack another with nuclear weapons, the victimized country would want the nuclear capabilities as a means of vengeance. As a result, he argued, America and Russia stockpiled thousands of warheads during the Cold War.
Following his remarks on the history of nuclear proliferation, Waltz turned his attention to the relationship between nuclear programs and the war in Iraq. If Iraq did indeed have nuclear capabilities, suggested Waltz, then the whole war would have changed since detailed operations would have been needed to disarm the fleet. "Since the intelligence situation at the time was not optimal," Waltz said, "the outcome of the decision to invade or not may have been very different."