Reddit mentions: The best arms control books

I'm going to make a plug for the wiki page on r/geopolitics. It includes books, news sources, podcasts, and other resources on international relations. Here is the link to the section on books that focus on general concepts of international relations, foreign policy, and geopolitics.

---

If you are completely new to the field of IR, begin by reading Jack Snyder's article "One World, Rival Theories". It is a little dated, but it provides a sound overview of the field of international relations, the three primary paradigms of IR, and some examples of practitioners of those paradigms. Alternatively, if you wish to spend a little money, read Dan Drezner's Theories of International Politics and Zombies. It's a more relaxed and humorous introduction into IR and the predominant elements of the field through the lens of a global zombie threat.

You can also watch the London School of Economics and Political Science's video International Relations: An Introduction. It's about 10 minutes long and partially an advertisement for the university, but it provides a very simple overview of IR. If you wish to watch something longer and more in-depth, William Spaniel created a International Relations 101 playlist with videos that deal with individual aspects of IR. If you decide to watch it, do it in order so that you do not get overwhelmed by the more interesting-sounding (but much more complex) videos.

Since you are interested in the political psychology of IR, I would recommend starting with Graham Allison's Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. The book examines the three levels of decision-making within a country in regards to international affairs: the government level, the organizational level (e.g. different government agencies), and the individual level (e.g. the President, the Secretary of State, Congressmen). It then provides this analysis within the context of the Cuban Missile Crisis and how analysis of the decisions of the United States and Soviet Union can be viewed very differently by examining each of the three levels. The book is basically required reading for all students of IR, or at least it should be.

Additionally, read Thomas C. Schelling's Arms and Influence. The book examines the various ways in which military capabilities (real or imagined) are used as bargaining power in international relations. It deals with a lot of the psychological elements at play in IR.

Finally, I also recommend Robert Jervis's Perception and Misperception in International Politics. This book examines how a decision-maker's perception of the world and their perception of other international actors can diverge from reality in noticeable patterns that can be detected and for reasons that can be comprehended. Essentially, it examines why political leaders make the decisions that they make.

>The deal wasn't there to stop Iran from making nuclear weapons because any country can do that with enough enrichment process. What the deal was to delay Iran from creating a nuclear weapon for 10 years at MINIMUM with a massive possibility to that continuing towards the future.

Theres no way the deal will continue to be upheld once iran has developed the capability to produce a weapon. It makes zero sense from any strategic point of view. They will have a massively improved position in terms of leverage and they will use it. To think otherwise is extraordinarily naive.

>Iran doesn't want sanctions or a weak economy, they are willing to put away a nuclear weapon (if they wanted to make one) and improve their own country.

Iran is not giving up on a nuclear weapon. They simply are unable to make one now. Theyre giving up a bunch of damaged centrifuges and under enriched uranium for economic relief. Turning wasted sunk cost into gain.

>Research/upgrading facilities/development of ballistic missiles have nothing to do with a nuclear weapon.

Edit: thats an actual sub for a diff purpose lol.

Yeah no, that doesnt pass the common sense test.

>If you compare a nuclear weapon against a missile that can be shot down, I would say a nuclear weapon is better to avert.

Have you not paid attention to the last 70 years? Ballistics and nuclear weapons go hand in hand. Its the only way countries that are not the US can project force. Its the only way Iran would ever be able to use the weapon as a deterrent.

>The US decided to put sanctions on their ballistic missiles program when EU decided not to with other countries deciding the same.

Its to the EUs strategic advantage to trade with Iran and diversify its oil suppliers. Its to the USs strategic advantage to not have a hostile nuclear power in the region that advocates for the destruction of itself and its allies.

>The deal was a success and was one of the best foreign agreements in the century.

Iran and the EU tangibly benefit, the USs position is weakened and Obama/Kerry pat themselves on the back for some symbolic victory. The deal is only a success if youre not the US.

>You brought the EU/Russia/China/US to a fucking agreement that took YEARS in the making and we have orange head come and tear it apart. I honestly suggest everyone here to read this book https://www.amazon.com/Dealbreaker-Donald-Trump-Unmaking-Nuclear/dp/0999874756

He was able to tear it up because the US never ratified it. It wasnt binding. I dont need to read someone elses opinions on the facts, ive read the deal itself and i know who stands to gain what.

Actually, the previous commenter is essentially correct.

Israel has two nuclear reactors: the Nahal Soreq research reactor and the Dimona nuclear weapons plant.

Nahal Soreq is a small reactor near Tel Aviv that was built by the U.S. in 1960 under President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" program. It is used primarily to manufacture medical isotopes, and is subject to international inspections under a site-specific agreement with the IAEA.

The French-built Dimona reactor is ostensibly referred to as a "research center," but the French government authorized its construction knowing fully well that it would be used to produce nuclear weapons. (Its output is many times greater than necessary for a research reactor.) French prime minister Guy Mollet gave his approval in the aftermath of the 1956 Suez campaign, when France and Britain had bailed out on their ally Israel due to American pressure. France (not the U.S.) was Israel's closest ally and primary weapons supplier during that period, and Israeli scientists had been assisting the French with their own nuclear program. Mollet felt guilty about deserting Israel in the Suez crisis and decided to make it up to the Israelis by building them a nuclear weapons plant. "We owe them the bomb," he allegedly said when he authorized Dimona's construction. You can read more about this history in Seymour Hersh's The Samson Option, which is my source for all of this.

The upshot is that the gist of what the previous commenter said is correct, although it should be noted that the nukes weren't "given" to Israel for free. An enormous amount of financial and human capital had to be devoted to the project. Dimona's construction cost Israel something like 10-15% of its entire GDP over the better part of a decade, and many of the country's top scientists and engineers were occupied with building nukes when they could have been focusing their talents on more constructive endeavors.

The deal wasn't there to stop Iran from making nuclear weapons because any country can do that with enough enrichment process. What the deal was to delay Iran from creating a nuclear weapon for 10 years at MINIMUM with a massive possibility to that continuing towards the future. Iran doesn't want sanctions or a weak economy, they are willing to put away a nuclear weapon (if they wanted to make one) and improve their own country.

Research/upgrading facilities/development of ballistic missiles have nothing to do with a nuclear weapon. If you compare a nuclear weapon against a missile that can be shot down, I would say a nuclear weapon is better to avert. The US decided to put sanctions on their ballistic missiles program when EU decided not to with other countries deciding the same. The deal was a success and was one of the best foreign agreements in the century. You brought the EU/Russia/China/US to a fucking agreement that took YEARS in the making and we have orange head come and tear it apart. I honestly suggest everyone here to read this book https://www.amazon.com/Dealbreaker-Donald-Trump-Unmaking-Nuclear/dp/0999874756

It provides all the context to the deal, why it was signed and the process behind orange man removing it and the effects.

> The internet is pretty old though

First of all, no its not. Social Media is what we're talking about here, and thats only 15 years old.

Secondly, it doesn't matter how old you think it is: it wasn't around in 1985. There was nothing in place for over a decade since then to solidify ANY social nomenclature other than TV, and again, TV shows weren't talking about Devils Triangles.

>I did thorough a google search for mentions of Devil's Triangle from before this year and couldn't find any evidence of a drinking game.

And this is third: Your complete and total dependance upon the internet as if its always been there. You're disregarding the rather glaring fact that we don't know what a phrase meant until the left, for some reason, sort of unanimously decided to be experts on what a Devils Triangle is (which I literally haven't ever heard before September), and with the advent of social media, a lot of localized lingo was phased out to Western Civilization being far more inclusive and communicative with a wider, broader form of popular culture. You think "Smear the Queer" still exists on any significant level? I haven't heard that since 1993, but I'm pretty sure people call it Tag now.

Like you do a google search, don't find anything, and confidently decide that its absence means it, for all time, MUST mean a threesome?

Because in 2010, it was a flash game. Does that mean that game is about threesomes?

As recent as 2017, it was a location in Pirates of the Carribeans where Salazar was bound to haunt the seas. Was that actually just about threesomes?

In 2007, it was a treacherous stretch of road in Tennessee. Do you think its called that because in 1985, Brett fucked two girls?

Also in 2013, Its the name of an IPA. If you drink it, do you get into threesomes?

By the way, heres that Tennesee stretch of road again. Its so popular, in fact, the TN Tourism board has adopted it.

This one, you'll find interesting. Its also the name of An astronomical constellation when Mars, Saturn, and Antares align. This one actually predates all of it, because it was named in 1866.

Oh, by the way, you're probably just playing obtuse, but lets get it out in the open here. Devils Triangle is also another name for The Bermuda Triangle. This one dates in at 1950.

Its a residence in El Paso

Its a 2009 episode of MysterQuest on History Channel

its ANOTHER IPA

Its a 1973 documentary title

Its a 1980s Board Game

Its the name of a land in RPG MO

Its a 2005 Novel about Terrorism

I'm inclined to think you're actually full of shit with your "thorough google search", but I've illustrated here that the left isnt actually the arbiter of the english language as much as it likes to believe it is.

My area is mostly interwar disarmament, the Washington conference in particular. Two of my favourites on this topic are: Britain, America, and Arms control 1921-1937 by Christopher Hall and Towards a New Order of Sea Power by Harold and Margaret Sprout. If anyone wants to read up on the Washington conference, these two should be the place to start.

There is also a VERY interesting piece by John Ferris about the 1920s (entitled 'The Last Decade of British Maritime Supremacy') in Far Flung Lines, edited by Keith Nielson and Greg Kennedy.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Politics-Technology-Nuclear-Proliferation/dp/0295977264

https://www.amazon.com/Samson-Option-Israels-Nuclear-American/dp/0394570065 is probably not an uncommon idea in nuclear-armed countries though.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Samson-Option-Israels-American/dp/0394570065/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1341194107&sr=8-1&keywords=sampson+option

A lot of the "negotiating" is done by middlemen, aka arms dealers. They take a commission from the manufacturers, which can then be used to bribe potential clients in making deals. In that way you can't accuse the manufacturers of bribery since they aren't doing it directly.

If you want a deeper look into how deals are made, check out this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Shadow-World-Inside-Global-Trade/dp/125001395X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1463801668&sr=8-1&keywords=the+shadow+world

>about 77,700 results.

Which is about the smallest non-zero number of search results I've ever seen from Google, every single one of which appears to be a reference to this book about terrorism.

How is that relevant?

>You know why gun nuts hate this question?

Because it makes about as much sense as asking why privateers needed Letters of Marque to privately own battleships and cannon in the 1790's... the Constitution says so.

>Because essentially any "arms" that did not exist at the time the constitution was written is on the table in a discussion of what is constitutional to ban.

If that were the case, then Machine Guns and Semiautomatic "assault" Weapons should be protected, as both of those were invented in the decades prior to the signing of the Constitution.

Your ignorance of the history of military technology and constitutional law isn't exactly a great argument in your favor....

> State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 614 P.2d 94, at 95, at 98 (1980).

>"Therefore, the term 'arms' as used by the drafters of the constitutions probably was intended to include those weapons used by settlers for both personal and military defense. The term 'arms' was not limited to firearms, but included several handcarried weapons commonly used for defense. The term 'arms' would not have included cannon or other heavy ordnance not kept by militia-men or private citizens."

Currently: The Twilight War: The Secret History of America's Thirty-Year Conflict with Iran

After this I will probably read

The Bear Went Over the Mountain: Soviet Combat Tactics in Afghanistan

On War

Black Flags: The Rise of ISIS

The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11

Illusions of Victory: The Anbar Awakening and the Rise of the Islamic State

On Grand Strategy

A fellow on the combined defense discord layed out his recommendations for books on nukes, so I'll list them here.

On Thermonuclear War By Herman Kahn

On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century by Jeffrey Larsen and Kerry Kartchner

The Evolution of Nuclear Strategy, Third Edition by Lawrence Freedman

Russian Strategic Nuclear Forces by Pavel Podvig

Nuclear Statecraft: History and Strategy in America's Atomic Age by Francis J. Gavin

Eating Grass: The Making of the Pakistani Bomb by Feroz Khan

Prevention, Pre-emption and the Nuclear Option: From Bush to Obama by Aiden Warren

Nuclear Deterrence in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Cold War for a New Era of Strategic Piracy by Thérèse Delpech

Analyzing Strategic Nuclear Policy by Charles L. Glaser

Making of the Atomic Bomb by Richard Rhodes

Dark Sun: The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb by Richard Rhodes

Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict by Vipin Narang

Building the H Bomb: A Personal History By Kenneth W Ford

The Logic of American Nuclear Strategy by Matthew Kroenig

Paper Tigers: china's Nuclear Posture by Jeffery Lewis

Arms and Influence by Thomas Schelling

> You keep ignoring /u/rn443 's main point

I ignored him because I doubt he'll budge from his position. Therefore, it's a waste of time.

> the international community wouldn't allow Israel to get away with genociding the Palestenians.

Maybe, maybe not. Maybe they can't do it all at once, but they can do it little by little. Keep in mind, Israel controls the media narrative and has powerful allies in the Western gov'ts. In The Host and The Parasite, the author explains how Israel and Western gov't had an agreement if Hamas gets elected they'll label them as a terrorist organization. Therefore, Hamas was doomed to begin with; long before they actually did any terrorist activity. Watch this short documentary on how the European nations control the Palestinian people through donations called the Donor Opium. Not to mention The Samson Option, in it, Israel openly challenged European gov'ts that if Israel goes down, they'll take everyone down with them.

Edit: Lol. Downvote away because you can't rebuttal. That's the only power you have.

> Border inspections for one thing. But to take a step back for a minute, the whole idea of them bringing in a nuke secretly to use is a bit absurd. Firstly it provides zero deterrence against anything, since it would take so long to do. Secondly, it can and will be traced back to them so there's no point in doing it unless they want to be destroyed. Thirdly this operation would be significantly more risky and less likely to succeed than just firing a missile once they have one, so if they just want to get in one hit on us before they die, they would be better off waiting until they have a finished ICBM and warhead.

The amount of container ships that actually get opened up is something like less than 1%.

Why does it provide zero deterrence? It actually provides far more than a questionable ICBM. With nuclear weapons already in place ready to go at a moment's notice, that's far more effective in deterring the US than an ICBM that the US has a reasonable chance of shooting down. Knowing that the NK have nuclear devices already in American cities is way scary. As for tracing, there's more plausible deniability than using an ICBM. ICBMs are almost instantly noticed due to satellites in geosynchronous orbit. A nuke in a panel van somewhere is much harder to track and harder to prove it was their's as radiological sampling takes longer to determine where the weapon likely came from. With an ICBM we know exactly who did it. And why it is more risky? A questionable ICBM that has a reasonable chance of getting intercepted is far more risky than a truck nuke that's biggest threat of detection is a local cop.

> Can you link to this? If it's true then they would have to assume that zero changes have been made to better prepare us after receiving this specific warning.

https://www.amazon.com/Nuclear-Terrorism-Ultimate-Preventable-Catastrophe/dp/B0013TMN1G

And building a crude gun type is easy. South Africa built 15 without anyone knowing and without the need to test. The hardest part is getting the HEU. IMO, it's actually harder now then before due to the change in radio shack (and similar mom and pop stores) inventory away from home user electronic parts to smartphones.

> They need a functioning warhead whether they are going to fire a missile 10 miles, 500, or 3,000. They don't have that yet.

They have have functioning warheads. And they have short and medium range missiles that can hit both Japan and South Korea. A big ass scud can carry a crude warhead 50 miles which will devastate Seoul.

> As you say, it's unreliable, and given enough time they can build enough missiles. The U.S. is never going to hinge it's nuclear defense on a missile shield that works as poorly as current technology does.

That's true, but with a nation as poor as North Korea, there is a limitation to how much resources they can pour into missile production. And those missiles already are dubious in quality. Which means they have to build even more. The cost of successful delivery starts to pale in comparison to the cost of smuggling in HEU and then completing the weapon in the US. The US missile shield right now is kind of a joke that serves more as corporate welfare than an actual viable defense.

> I'm not sure you fully understand how a deterrent is supposed to work. To deter the U.S. from attacking - something that can be done in a matter of minutes - they need to be able to prove that they can fire back a more-or-less impervious nuclear missile aimed at the U.S. within that window.

Which they don't have with an ICBM due to their crappy quality and our questionable missile shield. But they would with smuggled nuclear weapons. Weapons they could deploy in less than 30 minutes. There's nothing stopping NK from sending a signal to operatives in the US to use the weapon on short notice. Hell, they could even do it by email.

> How is the smuggling option supposed to deter an attack? They can't organize the materials to smuggle one if those materials are 60 seconds away from being hit with a tomahawk. Even if by some miracle they managed to get all the necessary components on a boat, the military situation in the midst of a U.S. assault on NK would make conditions for any North Korean shipping... not ideal.

I don't think you understand. They smuggle HEU into the US and over the course of a few months, complete a weapon and just wait. Literally just wait. Literally all they need to get into the US is the HEU and they can do that in a lead lined container ship shipped from a port in China or South East Asia. The NK-China border is porous with guards that are easy to bribe. You seem to have this idea that they'd ship from North Korea to the US a fully or partially assembled weapon quickly. That's not even remotely close to what I'm arguing.

> So then you seem to suggest that another option would be for them to pre-emptively smuggle nuclear weapons into U.S. cities as a deterrent.

That was was my main point.

> Ok... well, if you grant the highly unlikely scenario

Why is it highly unlikely? That's actually the most cost effective, reliable, accurate and likely to succeed means of delivery.

> the ability for that to deter anything only exists when they announce that they've done so.

Yes and no. NK would engage in a form of "do we have it, we're not telling, but you don't know for sure" kind of deal that puts the US into a grey zone where there's a good chance that they do have such a weapon, but we cannot be sure they do not. It's Schrodinger's Nukes where the only way to determine if they are in fact there is to attack North Korea, aka, opening the box. Furthermore, NK could clandestinely tell us. The last thing any administration wants to do is tell the population that their city could be truck nuked at a moment's notice. That's instant mass chaos.

> At which point, all hell will break loose and I'd say that by the end of a 24 hour period there's a 99.9% chance that those nukes are either found and disabled or are detonated.

What makes you think that they'll be found so easily? US cities are massive and as long as the HEU is kept in heavily shielded containers, radiological detectors won't pick it up. We're then going to have to racially profile Koreans and that will go down real badly. Plus NK knows that, so they'd probably hire non-Asians foreigners to hold the weapons. Furthermore, checking every American city would be virtually impossible.

> That is a made for TV film plot that only makes sense if North Korea wants to use the weapons offensively regardless

There's nothing stopping the weapons from being used defensively or offensively. A simple email to tell them to use the weapon or just instructions to blow it upon media news of a strike upon North Korea would work.

Smuggled nukes are way simple, way more reliable, way cheaper and way more accurate than trying to out tech a nation willing to pour billions into defense. An ICBM is inferior in every way except for domestic consumption.