Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation
1. Case Study – The Sale of Canadian Nuclear Power
“During the 1970s, Canada began to sell the CANDU reactor, a relatively simple and cheap reactor for use in generating nuclear power for electricity. Canadian industry has found a market for the CANDU reactor in the Third World because of its low cost and because of the increased cost of oil in Third World countries. Although these reactors are more than likely purchased in order to provide cheap electrical power, the CANDU can provide potential nuclear weapons countries with important ingredients for the production of nuclear weapons. Canada has already sold CANDU reactors to Argentina, South Korea, Taiwan, India, and Pakistan.
Image Source: http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/candu.jpg
Discussion/Research Questions
1. Should Canada have sold CANDU reactors to these countries, given that they could be interested in possessing nuclear weapons? (Note: the NPT obligations include the legal transfer of nuclear power capabilities to states that forego nuclear weapons).
2. Is the transfer of nuclear energy technology to nuclear weapons technology as simple as implied?
3. What controls does Canada require for the buyers of such technology? Are they stringent enough?
4. How do you balance checks and balances of good potential versus the destructive potential of nuclear energy?
2. Case Study Chernobyl: Case Study
Read the following Case Study.
The Chernobyl Catastrophe
http://oii.org/html/story.html
Discussion Questions
1. Describe the disaster at Chernobyl. What were the civilian and environmental consequences?
2. What are the implications of aging nuclear plants and reactors? What should the international community’s response be?
3. Do you think the benefits of nuclear power outweigh the risks?
Why/why not?
Research Questions
1. What happened to Chernobyl?
2. Investigate the effects on children after the nuclear disaster; they are commonly called Chernobyl children
3. What happened to the Chernobyl plant?
Background Information
http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/
http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm
3. Case Study: The Prisoner’s Dilemma:
“Suppose two criminals, Tom and Harry, have robbed and murdered someone, been caught by the police and taken to jail. The police have excellent evidence tying them to the robbery but no evidence on who committed the murder. Therefore, the police keep the two prisoners isolated and take them to separate interrogation rooms. There, they offer them the same deal. If both do not confess, the police will at least pursue charges of robbery, which will land both of them five years in jail. If Tom does confess, however, implicating Harry in the murder, then Tom will
receive only one year in jail, and Harry will receive the death sentence. The police make sure to tell him that Harry is being made the same offer. Finally, if both confess, the police will offer them both 15 years in jail.
Now, consider each prisoner's dilemma. Personally, Tom has everything to gain by confessing. If his partner confesses, Tom gets 15 years by confessing himself and the death sentence if he does not, so in this case it is better for Tom to confess. But if his partner does not confess, Tom gets one year by confessing and five if he does not, so, again, it's in his best interest to confess.
Once both prisoners confess and meet in jail to begin their 15-year sentences, both will realize they have been duped. If they had both refused to confess, they would be serving five years in jail instead of 15. Their self-interest led to an even worse result than if they had cooperated.
A diagram may help explain:
Tom confesses Tom doesn't confess --------------------!-------------------------
Harry confesses Tom gets 15 ! Tom gets death
Harry gets 15 ! Harry gets 1
--------------------!-------------------------
Harry doesn't Tom gets 1 ! Tom gets 5
confess Harry gets death ! Harry gets 5
Each box contains the result of Tom and Harry's decisions. For example, the first box in the upper left-hand corner explains what happens when both Tom and Harry confess.
Now, notice the vertical column in which Tom confesses, and the vertical column in which Tom does not confess. Compare these two columns horizontally, and the shortest jail sentence for Tom always occur in the left column. In this case, Tom has what game theorists call a dominant strategy -- confess. It will always lead to his best personal result.
It will not, however, lead to the best joint result. In order to gain the much easier five-year sentence, each would have to risk their worst personal result: the death sentence. Each would have to trust the other not to try for a one-year prison term -- and no one trusts another person that much. In fact, suppose that the police allowed Tom and Harry the chance to meet face-to-face before striking a deal. Tom and Harry, both desiring the 5-year sentence, quickly agree not to confess. When they bring them back to their separate interrogation rooms, however, the dilemma would exist just as strongly as before! Tom would think, "I'm pretty certain Harry is not going to confess, so I can double-cross him and only get one year by confessing. I will never have to fear revenge because he will get the death sentence, so I've got nothing to lose; I'll confess. On the other hand, if I don't confess, I'm risking that Harry will not double-cross me... then I'll be risking the death sentence. The best thing to do is confess."
Assignment
In small groups, act out the prisoner’s dilemma. Ask yourselves the following questions:
- What decision would you make?
- What factors affect your decision?
After acting out the scenario, answer the following questions:
1. How does this dilemma relates to the development of nuclear arms during the Cold war?
2. How does the Non Proliferation Treaty make the actions of other states more transparent and predictable and how does this build trust and remove a perceived threat?
3. How does the dilemma change when non-state actors are involved? (you can’t sign the NPT with a terrorist)
