Fully answer each question with the question number on the attached, rule sheets. Please keep all pages together. ALL QUESTIONS, INCLUDING “OPINION QUESTIONS” REQUIRE CONCLUSIONS BASED UPON FULLY ARTICULATED AND REASONED PREMISES, NOT JUST A SUMMARY OPINION ANSWER,
1. lf a terrorist group sets off a nuclear bomb in one American city which city do you think they will choose and why? Discuss fully.
2. Nuclear Terrorism
a. Is it in the interests of a foreign government to harbor/sanction a terrorist group in its territory that it KNOWS to be planning to detonate a nuclear bomb in one or more American cities? Yes or no and why?
b. Discuss any immediate and long term consequences of such a government’s decision to harbor such a terrorist group?
3. Discuss problems of international scope that can be or have been created by the current three non—signatories to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty Of 1969, namely, India, Pakistan and Israel. Note: also address North Korea, which though it has signed the NPT is not in current compliance. Iran has signed the NPT though there are issues with the West.
4. Thanks to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the United States is now the world’s number one producer of natural gas though not of oil. Yet, the worldwide price of oil is always valued in US. dollars. Why is this so? What international consequences or for individual countries might exist if oil were NOT so pegged in US. dollars?
5. Twenty-one leaders of the Nazi regime were tried at Nuremburg immediately after World War II. They were tried under four counts agreed by the victorious allies: war crimes not justified by military necessity, crimes against humanity, crimes against peace and waging aggressive war. Eleven defendants were hanged; three were acquitted and seven were given prison sentences. All imprisoned defendants were released early, except Albert Speer and Rudolf Hess who had been imprisoned in England after 1940. Except for War Crimes trials held at The Hague after the Bosnian War of 1993, no war crimes trials have been held, no perpetrators of Nuremburg offenses have been tried, punished or even sought out by the NATO allies or otherwise by the international community. With all of the destructive and genocidal wars that have occurred since WWII and the villains who have perpetrated Nuremburg crimes, why have not more war crimes trials occurred? Are the Nuremburg offenses of any enduring value? Is there such a thing as meaningful international law in the Nuremburg trials?
6. The Ukraine situation
a. Who or which side in the conflict do you think started the conflict and why?
b. Leaving aside who or which side is responsible for starting the conflict, do you think the Western Alliance will allow Russia to hold onto Its (annexation of) Crimea?
c. Given the current state of affairs in the region, can the Western Alliance afford to allow Russia to hold onto Crimea?
d. How would you try to settle the conflict in Ukraine?
e. Can you suggest a way in which the general Ukraine conflict could have been avoided?
7. Discuss the advantages and disadvantages, if any, for a country that does NOT observe all or some of the human rights described in the 1948 Universal Declaration Of Human Rights. Please discuss by examples of specific countries.
8. It has been calculated that for all nations to enjoy the same standards of living as Americans would require the resources of five planet earths. The energy requirements of developing countries for food, fresh water and energy alone promise to stress the resources and habitability of the planet. Assuming population growth continues among the 7 billion people on the planet, can you see any practical, political, peaceful solution to the resource problem? Or do you think that resource conflict is inevitable? Discuss.
9. Do you think proliferation of nuclear armed nations will abate or continue? Discuss.
10. Do international conferences these days accomplish their stated goals, usefully accomplish some good or none at all? Discuss by example.
11. If the nuclear deal with Iran is adopted will this:
a. Lessen the likelihood of Iran’s developing a nuclear weapon?
b. Increase the likelihood of Iran’s developing a nuclear weapon?
c. Make a nuclear exchange involving lran more or less likely?
12. If the lran deal is ultimately rejected will this increase the likelihood of:
a. Iran’s developing a nuclear weapon?
b. Make a nuclear exchange involving Iran more or less likely?
13. Opponents of the Iran deal make assumptions (of fact) that further sanctions on Iran in the event of no deal will deter Iran’s acquiring a nuclear weapon. What are these assumptions? Are the opponents right or wrong in their conclusions? Why?
14. Beginning in the late 1950s influential voices in the West, such as Dr. Henry Kissinger, advocated increasing the U.S./NATO capability to fight limited/small/conventional “brushfire” wars, so as to avoid every crisis between communist countries and the west deteriorating into a general nuclear war.
a. What was the Soviet Bloc response to this “Kissinger doctrine”?
b. Has this “Kissinger doctrine” itself worked to avoid nuclear war? Or is there some other reason why there has not yet been a nuclear exchange between nations? [Note: WWll Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings are not an exchange]
15. How did the parties to the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 avoid general nuclear war? Specifically, did their respective actions actually prevent such a general conflict? How?
16. Is “limited nuclear war” a practical policy in international relations? Specifically, would an agreement by nuclear armed powers to confine strikes to military targets prove workable in the event of a nuclear exchange or must such an exchange inevitably lead to the destruction of cities and civilian populations? In answering the question take into account the type of nuclear conflict for which U.S./NATO and Russian response systems are actually designed. [Recall the in class presentations of “Countdown To Zero“ and “The Fog Of War.”]
17. Only the Security Council of the United Nations can “legally” sanction use of force in resolution of a crisis between or among nations. What is the practical problem for the Council in arriving at such a decision and authorizing such action?
18. At every election time in the United States some right leaning politician or politicians advocate building a physical wall all along the U.S./Mexican border to stop illegal entry. This year some also advocate building one along the Canadian border. Were such walls to be actually built would they accomplish their purpose or not? Why?
19. Is there a practical/political solution to the problem of refugees streaming into Europe from Africa and the middle East? lf so, what is it? if not. why?
