Stanford University Press Blog

New Missile Defense: What future will Obama's decision hold?

President Obama’s recent decision to eliminate a missile defense system plan has stirred up quite a controversy in domestic and international politics.  Instead of setting up a limited missile defense system in Poland to intercept potential long-range nuclear missiles from Iran – which, at present, haven’t been developed there – Obama has decided that the US should arrange a shorter range missile interceptor near Iran for the medium range missile threat. Some say that this decision is a concession to Russian complaints that the longer range set-up would provide the U.S. with an opportunity for a first-strike.

In a recent op-ed in the Short Stack column for the Washington Post, Thomas Graham co-author of Preventing Catastrophe: The Use and Misuse of Intelligence in Efforts to Halt the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction,  gives his opinion on Obama’s decision to change the strategy from the Bush administration’s more aggressive stance on missile defense.  He explains that after a long history of unsuccessful nuclear defense plans, a more realistic plan has now been introduced. Some fear that a new wave of nuclear proliferation could soon develop, leading to more dangerous and paranoid international relations. Graham points out that by changing our missile defense plan, the Obama administration is hoping to “reset” relations with Russia while also defending from the very realistic possibility of Iranian medium-range missiles.  It will be interesting to see how this decision plays out: Will it buy us more cooperation with Russia for future nonproliferation and help us to defend from the very real threat posed by Iran? Or, in terms of defending its NATO allies in Eastern Europe, is it dangerous and unwise move for U.S. foreign policy?

Confronting the Bomb: Can individuals make a difference?

Can ordinary citizens really bring change to international politics? We may think this question applies only to current times when we talk of Gov 2.0 and governments outsourcing ideas from citizens on Twitter. As the nuclear disarmament campaign shows, grassroots movements have had an impact in previous decades as well.

Larry Wittner, author of Confronting the Bomb, A Short History of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, provides a brief look at the history of the anti-nuclear movement and how it affected world leaders. In an interview with Marshall Poe of New Books in History, Wittner draws on his book to explain how nuclear disarmament has developed and how it has been affected by public movements. 

Wittner's book includes many interesting quotations from world leaders that evidence just how excited international leaders initially were about the advent of the Bomb. Winston Churchill loved the bomb and saw it as a way to win wars and maintain international influence. Eisenhower viewed the bomb as a positive addition to the U.S. arsenal, saying "My administration looks on nuclear weapons as no different than a bullet." The general consensus among leaders was that bigger and better weapons lead to better defense and therefore a safer environment.                                                         

As Wittner goes on to explain, the public saw nuclear weapons in a different light. From the early 1970's to its height in the early 1980s, an anti-nuclear movement had people all over the world protesting the Bomb. As Marshall Poe himself reminisces, he never thought that his small protests really had a big impact.  However, Wittner explains that the  growing anti-nuclear campaign had a huge influence on world leaders' decisions, from small protests to gatherings of almost 1 million people. At the beginning of Ronald Reagan's term as president, he made clear that  nuclear weapons  were a positive addition to U.S. defense.  But as time went on and as the disarmament campaign grew, the nation watched Reagan make a complete turn around. He began to consider the call for disarmament. Even leaders of other countries began to change the way they viewed nuclear weapons. After 1985, Nikolai Gorbachev said "new thinking" was needed. Gorbachev and Reagan met many times and were able to come to agreements for lessening the nuclear arsenals in their countries.

As leaders began to heed the requests of the public, people of the anti-nuclear movement became comfortable and complacent. The movement has since died down. Toward the late 1990's, the anti-nuclear movement became less prolific.  As a result, nuclear weapons began to increase again. In 1996, a Republican Senate rejected a nuclear test ban treaty, and later, during George W. Bush administration, the President began to pursue the creation of new nuclear weapons. Free from the pressure of the nuclear disarmament campaign, the government is at liberty to pursue nuclear weapons -- but, as Wittner explains, the movement is reviving.

Wittner's book goes into a brief history of the advent of bomb and a more detailed  history of the movement against it. Though the movement has had its ups and downs, Wittner is confident that it is resurging and as history shows, ordinary people can make a big difference.
    

Washington Post's Short Stack Column Invites SUP Authors to Comment

As we get ready for President Obama's pivotal address on health care this evening, Richard Scheffler's op-ed serves as a reminder of how badly the current system is in need of reform, and that settling for status-quo is not a sustainable option. James Surowiecki in an insightful piece in the New Yorker has diagnosed our reluctance for health care reform as "status-quo bias."  It's the desire to keep the health benefits we have unless, of c0urse, you happen to be one of the 46 million Americans who do not have health insurance.

Professor Scheffler points out that our current health care system suffers from problems with supply as much as growing demand, "The system now under-provides basic primary care -- which is key to a well-functioning system. The health workforce needs to be reconfigured. We need more primary care doctors, nurse practitioners and physician assistants, and we need them right away. If we do not have an adequate number of primary care providers, then the reforms will surely fail." In his book, Is There a Doctor in the House?: Market Signals and Tomorrow's Supply of Doctors, Scheffler argues that a crucial component of health care reform should involve forecasting the "right" ratio of doctors to the population and making sure that primary care providers are adequately compensated.

Wayne Logan's op-ed discusses the need for reassessing the criminal registration laws in light of the Jaycee Lee Dugard case. In his critique of current laws, Logan writes,  "the nationwide social experiment of registration and community notification laws, affecting hundreds of thousands of individuals and their families, imposes significant costs. It also distracts from other -- possibly preferable -- public safety strategies. The system demands a closer look. Indeed, it would be difficult to identify any other social policy of such magnitude that has evaded a critical review."

Professor Logan's book, Knowledge as Power, provides the first in-depth study of criminal registration and community notification laws, examining the potent forces driving their rapid nationwide proliferation in the 1990s through today, as well as exploring how the laws have affected the nation's law, society, and governance.

Who Do You Root For: The Coyote or the Road Runner?

It turns out that your answer will depend on your culture.  In an article in Harvard Business Review, Professor Alfredo Behrens  (author of Culture and Management in the Americas) discusses a study in which he interviewed MBA alumni around the world asking which of the two cartoon characters they most consistently supported and why.

The study found that roughly 75% of anglophones (Britons, Canadians and New Zealanders) tend to root for the Coyote.  And, almost two-thirds of Iberians (and their ancestors) root for the Road Runner.   Interestingly, the culturally diverse pool of "American MBAs fell into two categories: those who self-identified as Caucasian-Americans,  sided with the Coyote, while those who self-identified as Hispanic-, Asian-, Jewish-, or African-Americans, tended to side with the Road Runner, even more consistently."

Behrens' findings indicate that those who identify with the Coyote respond mainly to the character's perceived courage. "Though the Coyote routinely loses, he perseveres.  Latins, on the other hand, identify more with the joy and freedom they perceive in the provocative Road Runner."  As Professor Beherens shows in this piece, the differences hold implications for MNCs when it comes to managing their subsidiaries and global operations, particularly in Latin America.