GOV 312L 2nd Midterm Exam
Questions and All Correct Answers
2026 Updated.
What is deterrence? - Answer to discourage attack through threat of retaliation (nuclear
weapons). May not be able to prevent attack, but can retaliate to where you don't want to
attack in the FIRST PLACE. This is opposed to defense -- active measures to protect against
harm.
What are the main elements of deterrence? - Answer 1. Severe conflict: SU and US intense
enemies, negotiation not an option.
2. Assumption of rationality: enemy must know what nuclear weapons can do to them, put their
own self preservation first
3. Unacceptable damage: retaliatory attack needs to be devastating in order to make deterrence
work. If it just weakens the enemy, it weakens deterrence
4. Credibility: each side is to be able to follow through. If enemy doesn't think you'll strike back,
then that weakens deterrence
5. Stability: adversary should not attack, neither side should have the incentive to attack, meant
to avoid war
What is Clauswitz' idea of total war and how is the idea of total war associated with mutually
assured destruction (MAD)? - Answer Total war is a war so terrible, both sides are assured
massive amounts of destruction and the war itself no longer serves the purposes of protecting
the state
What is mutually assured destruction (MAD)? - Answer MAD is if two sides use nuclear
weapons, then both will end up being annihilated
What is second strike capability and why is it essential to MAD? - Answer Second strike
capability: a country's assured ability to respond to an attack - if one country is hit with a
nuclear weapon, will they have enough weapons left to attack back? Neither side has an
incentive to start a war because both have 2nd strike capabilities (ex subs loaded with nuclear
weapons and foreign missiles bases -- turkey and cuba). And when there is no resonate go to
war, one would have to make the escalation of a nuclear war credible. Deterrence is meant to
avoid war, not wage war
What is the problem of credibility in nuclear deterrence? Explain why the effectiveness of
deterrent threats depends on credibility. - Answer Do you have the will (resolve) to execute
these threats? Do you have the capability to execute these threats? Will you surrender you own
cities/people to execute these threats? If no one believes your answers to any of those
questions, then your threat of deterrence is invalid.
,Explain how three aspects of credibility - capabilities, resolve, and protecting one's allies - affect
the credibility problem - Answer For credibility , you need 3 things:
1. Capability: you have second strike weapons that will survey the initial first strike. (ex during
cold war submarines improve credibility)
2. Resolve: don't back down. If actors really want something, willing to pay lots of cost to get it.
Make public threats (ex Kennedy on TV during Cuba). Another way: leave something to change
to demonstrate your resolve (ex have bombers fly unguarded over enemy territory at risk of
dropping.
3. Allies protection: sacrifice your cities to protect allied cities: Los Angeles for West Germany.
Tripwires: troops along North/South Korean border and West Berlin. Eisenhower wanted to give
W Germany their own nuclear weapons.
What is extended deterrence and how do alliance commitments complicate credible deterrent
threats? Explain how questions about credibility complicated American deterrent threats
against eh Soviet Union to protect Western Europe. What actions were taken (and
contemplated) by the US during the Cold War to enhance the credibility of its extended
deterrence threats? - Answer Extended deterrence: preventing an armed attack against
another state
Peace during cold war rested heavily on threats of the US attacking SU if they invaded W
Germany
If Soviets doubt US credibility, they will attack and take W Berlin.
If US allies (mainly France) doubts US credibility, they will exit the alliance (moving to SU side or
neutrality, which will leave the US on its own)
Once SU had lots of nuclear bombs, were we willing to sacrifice our own land to protect
Germans in West Berlin?
Solutions to enhance credibility:
-tripwires: sent US troops to West berlin and korean peninsula, mainly to die. Would be hard for
US to retract nuclear threats if thousands of Americans had died in an initial commitment
-Give W germany nuclear weapons so it's no longer our problem
Explain the basis of stability under MAD and how missile defense systems undermine that
stability. - Answer Stability rests on threats to engage in violence, not the actual act of
military force. So the threat of MAD deters nuclear war.
If we can defend ourselves with missiles etc to shoot down approaching nuclear weapons, then
one side can gain first strike capabilities and upset the balnac of power, and only one side gets
annihilated
Missile defense removes second strike capabilities. Leaving two options for vulnerable states:
arms build up or preemptive strike.
Either way, missile defense destabilizing, states have great incentives to start nuclear war.
Ironically, having a better defense agains nuclear weapons is more likely to lead to a nuclear war
,What is nuclear proliferation? - Answer More countries getting nuclear weapons, or
increasing their stockpiles
Compare and contrast the pessimistic and optimistic perspectives on how nuclear proliferation
will affect international stability - Answer Pessimist: SCOTT SAGAN
-more state nukes means more risk because they're not as stable as the US (underdeveloped,
more prone to accidental use of nukes)
-new entries to the nuclear club, may not have responsibility and integrity (more likely to be
poorer, possess fewer nukes, other state may want to strike while they have a smaller nuclear
force)
-tend to value readiness more than safety (greater risk for accidental use)
- they could sell to third parties or terrorist organization
Israel is scared of Iran getting nukes because vulnerability during stage of weapons development
may heighten preventative war
-pursuit of nukes, heightens war
Optimist: KENNETH WALTZ
-nukes generate tremendous caution in crises, deterrence limits aggression
securing second strike capabilities is say, just hid and bury them
-terrorists and commies can never know if they really got all our nukes, states just opt to not use
nukes in the first place
-limits violence in war so that they don't escalate too much. They gfear retaliation by nuke
-states maintain control on nukes
Why does the US have a strong national interest in preventing nuclear proliferation? - Answer
Nuclear weapons blunt advantages of great powers (like US) in conventional weapons.
Freezes territorial status quo for nuclear armed states: cannot invade without risking nuclear
retaliation
Takes military coercion or threat of regime change off the table for the US and other great
powers
Compare "Axis of Evil": Iran, Iraq, and North Korea
-if don't have nuclear weapons (iraq) get invaded. if do have nuclear weapons (N korea) get
touch diplomacy
Creates incentives to get nuclear weapons
Growing risk of being targeted in a nuclear strike
Limits ability to translate military superiority into political influence
Compare and contrast vies on morality and nuclear deterrence and how it violates principles of
Just War theory. - Answer Morality prohibits nuclear deterrence
, -nuclear deterrence based on hostage holding scenario
-threat to kill millions of innocent people whose freedom is wrongfully deprived (rights
approach)
-no goal is worth enough to justify threatening to kill millions of innocent, non-involved persons
-if nuclear war is immoral, threatening nuclear war is immoral
Morality requires nuclear deterrence
-based on consequences (utilitarian)
-deterrence is justified from utilitarian perspective because it is bloodless
-abandoning the policy would result in death = greater than harm caused
-nuclear weapons are here to stay, need to threaten in a deterrence strategy
Just War Theory and Nuclear Deterrence:
Nuclear deterrence results in unjust conduct of war
-violates principle of proportionality and discrimination
-requires just cause to justify annihilation ... proportion
-doesn't discriminate between combatants and noncombatants
According to your Lieber and Press reading, why won't states give nuclear weapons to
terrorists? - Answer Too much risk.
-the terrorist group can't be trusted not to turn against the government that gave them the
weapons
-there is only a short list of governments known to be connected to terrorists so determining
the source of the attack is easy - threat of international punishment
-as the number of deaths resulting from the attack increases, the rate of attribution goes up -
again the threat of international punishment goes up.
What are the arguments for and against the ban to prevent the spread of Ebola to the US? -
Answer Argument against travel ban
-the threat is still low and a travel ban will not make us much safer
-will create incentives to go underground and thus make it harder to track infected persons
-will harm volunteer organizations' access to W African countries
-will scare away volunteers who may not be able to return to US
-will harm already fragile W African economies
-could lead to many more countries following America's lead and banning travel
-could feed fear of americans and make us feel less safe
-already many airlines have temporarily halted flights to the area
-BOTTOM LINE: would make ebola outbreak even worse and thus ebola more dangerous
Questions and All Correct Answers
2026 Updated.
What is deterrence? - Answer to discourage attack through threat of retaliation (nuclear
weapons). May not be able to prevent attack, but can retaliate to where you don't want to
attack in the FIRST PLACE. This is opposed to defense -- active measures to protect against
harm.
What are the main elements of deterrence? - Answer 1. Severe conflict: SU and US intense
enemies, negotiation not an option.
2. Assumption of rationality: enemy must know what nuclear weapons can do to them, put their
own self preservation first
3. Unacceptable damage: retaliatory attack needs to be devastating in order to make deterrence
work. If it just weakens the enemy, it weakens deterrence
4. Credibility: each side is to be able to follow through. If enemy doesn't think you'll strike back,
then that weakens deterrence
5. Stability: adversary should not attack, neither side should have the incentive to attack, meant
to avoid war
What is Clauswitz' idea of total war and how is the idea of total war associated with mutually
assured destruction (MAD)? - Answer Total war is a war so terrible, both sides are assured
massive amounts of destruction and the war itself no longer serves the purposes of protecting
the state
What is mutually assured destruction (MAD)? - Answer MAD is if two sides use nuclear
weapons, then both will end up being annihilated
What is second strike capability and why is it essential to MAD? - Answer Second strike
capability: a country's assured ability to respond to an attack - if one country is hit with a
nuclear weapon, will they have enough weapons left to attack back? Neither side has an
incentive to start a war because both have 2nd strike capabilities (ex subs loaded with nuclear
weapons and foreign missiles bases -- turkey and cuba). And when there is no resonate go to
war, one would have to make the escalation of a nuclear war credible. Deterrence is meant to
avoid war, not wage war
What is the problem of credibility in nuclear deterrence? Explain why the effectiveness of
deterrent threats depends on credibility. - Answer Do you have the will (resolve) to execute
these threats? Do you have the capability to execute these threats? Will you surrender you own
cities/people to execute these threats? If no one believes your answers to any of those
questions, then your threat of deterrence is invalid.
,Explain how three aspects of credibility - capabilities, resolve, and protecting one's allies - affect
the credibility problem - Answer For credibility , you need 3 things:
1. Capability: you have second strike weapons that will survey the initial first strike. (ex during
cold war submarines improve credibility)
2. Resolve: don't back down. If actors really want something, willing to pay lots of cost to get it.
Make public threats (ex Kennedy on TV during Cuba). Another way: leave something to change
to demonstrate your resolve (ex have bombers fly unguarded over enemy territory at risk of
dropping.
3. Allies protection: sacrifice your cities to protect allied cities: Los Angeles for West Germany.
Tripwires: troops along North/South Korean border and West Berlin. Eisenhower wanted to give
W Germany their own nuclear weapons.
What is extended deterrence and how do alliance commitments complicate credible deterrent
threats? Explain how questions about credibility complicated American deterrent threats
against eh Soviet Union to protect Western Europe. What actions were taken (and
contemplated) by the US during the Cold War to enhance the credibility of its extended
deterrence threats? - Answer Extended deterrence: preventing an armed attack against
another state
Peace during cold war rested heavily on threats of the US attacking SU if they invaded W
Germany
If Soviets doubt US credibility, they will attack and take W Berlin.
If US allies (mainly France) doubts US credibility, they will exit the alliance (moving to SU side or
neutrality, which will leave the US on its own)
Once SU had lots of nuclear bombs, were we willing to sacrifice our own land to protect
Germans in West Berlin?
Solutions to enhance credibility:
-tripwires: sent US troops to West berlin and korean peninsula, mainly to die. Would be hard for
US to retract nuclear threats if thousands of Americans had died in an initial commitment
-Give W germany nuclear weapons so it's no longer our problem
Explain the basis of stability under MAD and how missile defense systems undermine that
stability. - Answer Stability rests on threats to engage in violence, not the actual act of
military force. So the threat of MAD deters nuclear war.
If we can defend ourselves with missiles etc to shoot down approaching nuclear weapons, then
one side can gain first strike capabilities and upset the balnac of power, and only one side gets
annihilated
Missile defense removes second strike capabilities. Leaving two options for vulnerable states:
arms build up or preemptive strike.
Either way, missile defense destabilizing, states have great incentives to start nuclear war.
Ironically, having a better defense agains nuclear weapons is more likely to lead to a nuclear war
,What is nuclear proliferation? - Answer More countries getting nuclear weapons, or
increasing their stockpiles
Compare and contrast the pessimistic and optimistic perspectives on how nuclear proliferation
will affect international stability - Answer Pessimist: SCOTT SAGAN
-more state nukes means more risk because they're not as stable as the US (underdeveloped,
more prone to accidental use of nukes)
-new entries to the nuclear club, may not have responsibility and integrity (more likely to be
poorer, possess fewer nukes, other state may want to strike while they have a smaller nuclear
force)
-tend to value readiness more than safety (greater risk for accidental use)
- they could sell to third parties or terrorist organization
Israel is scared of Iran getting nukes because vulnerability during stage of weapons development
may heighten preventative war
-pursuit of nukes, heightens war
Optimist: KENNETH WALTZ
-nukes generate tremendous caution in crises, deterrence limits aggression
securing second strike capabilities is say, just hid and bury them
-terrorists and commies can never know if they really got all our nukes, states just opt to not use
nukes in the first place
-limits violence in war so that they don't escalate too much. They gfear retaliation by nuke
-states maintain control on nukes
Why does the US have a strong national interest in preventing nuclear proliferation? - Answer
Nuclear weapons blunt advantages of great powers (like US) in conventional weapons.
Freezes territorial status quo for nuclear armed states: cannot invade without risking nuclear
retaliation
Takes military coercion or threat of regime change off the table for the US and other great
powers
Compare "Axis of Evil": Iran, Iraq, and North Korea
-if don't have nuclear weapons (iraq) get invaded. if do have nuclear weapons (N korea) get
touch diplomacy
Creates incentives to get nuclear weapons
Growing risk of being targeted in a nuclear strike
Limits ability to translate military superiority into political influence
Compare and contrast vies on morality and nuclear deterrence and how it violates principles of
Just War theory. - Answer Morality prohibits nuclear deterrence
, -nuclear deterrence based on hostage holding scenario
-threat to kill millions of innocent people whose freedom is wrongfully deprived (rights
approach)
-no goal is worth enough to justify threatening to kill millions of innocent, non-involved persons
-if nuclear war is immoral, threatening nuclear war is immoral
Morality requires nuclear deterrence
-based on consequences (utilitarian)
-deterrence is justified from utilitarian perspective because it is bloodless
-abandoning the policy would result in death = greater than harm caused
-nuclear weapons are here to stay, need to threaten in a deterrence strategy
Just War Theory and Nuclear Deterrence:
Nuclear deterrence results in unjust conduct of war
-violates principle of proportionality and discrimination
-requires just cause to justify annihilation ... proportion
-doesn't discriminate between combatants and noncombatants
According to your Lieber and Press reading, why won't states give nuclear weapons to
terrorists? - Answer Too much risk.
-the terrorist group can't be trusted not to turn against the government that gave them the
weapons
-there is only a short list of governments known to be connected to terrorists so determining
the source of the attack is easy - threat of international punishment
-as the number of deaths resulting from the attack increases, the rate of attribution goes up -
again the threat of international punishment goes up.
What are the arguments for and against the ban to prevent the spread of Ebola to the US? -
Answer Argument against travel ban
-the threat is still low and a travel ban will not make us much safer
-will create incentives to go underground and thus make it harder to track infected persons
-will harm volunteer organizations' access to W African countries
-will scare away volunteers who may not be able to return to US
-will harm already fragile W African economies
-could lead to many more countries following America's lead and banning travel
-could feed fear of americans and make us feel less safe
-already many airlines have temporarily halted flights to the area
-BOTTOM LINE: would make ebola outbreak even worse and thus ebola more dangerous
