Reaction that happened over there. Over the past five months commemorating the breakthrough and experiencing the longterm impact but of that original event sunday five years ago. It brings social science into theho conversation the panelist will be introduced in just a moment as a scholar of International Relationsur and securitywp to offer viewpoints on military decisions of the formationn of alliances so this event is sponsored of the social sciences of university ofhe chicago and from the university of chicago politics thinks to each of those organizations for their support. So ill introduce a moderator as a panelist when he comes up. From the chiefef content philosopher has covered everything from politics to pop culture and numerous public radio stations. From 2012 through 2017 from the institute of politics and to claim those Public Events with Civic Engagement programs with that partnership edwards is University Chicago intellect got his bachelors degree and was a wallace fellow from the university of michigan. [applause] thank you so much for the introduction. Honor to be back here with all off you with such an important time for this conversation. Not only for the history and the commemorating of the sources and 75 years of the dawn of the nuclear age but also those realities of a geopolitics to watch very closely the announcement a few days ago last week when our sister publication moved the hands 30 seconds closer the closest in 60 years. I am eager to hear the insight on the fundamental question dith the Global Community with a distinguished panel but on r my far right you will have each of them talked for about five minutes bringing insight for the research and then moved to questions so let me begin with a professor of Political Science with the global suicide terrorism with that Strategic Logic and why those sanctions dodo not work and many other articles in a frequent contributor to a variety of news and Media Outlets and before coming to university of chicago and for those airpower studies receiving a phd from the university of chicago and also director from the chicago project as his work focuses on suicide terrorism. Next we have the assistant professor here at the university of chicago and Research Affiliate for the study of global conflicts. Studying International Relations on International Security with the economics of four and organizing democracy and has coauthored academic papers and has received his phd from the university of michigan michigan and from Political Science and before that was the assistant professor at rutgers with the department of economics at ohio state university. Austin carson as they specialize in security and intelligence International Security and governance there is an interest of understanding how they reveal and conceal and at this juncture the front stage in the backstage of International Politics of the colbert form of intervention otherwise the politics of open secrets Sensitive Information all of which are in play here tonight. Phd in Political Science and from globalization and from the Woodrow Wilson center. Next to professor carson is theen associate associate professor and faculty chair on International Relations on International Security policy and research focuses on International Security or to explain that lesion. And finally the Nuclear Proliferation fellow here at the university recently receiving her phd from the university of South Carolina her research is the intersection of International Relations and comparative politics on how institutions open or more specifically their propensity for Nuclear Proliferation also they may choose to reverse the weapons programs. And m currently working on a book most recently named by the bulletin of the atomic scientists so welcome all of the t panelist. [applause]. Widely in the public at larg. When researching why japan surrendered i had to go through gory details were two atomic bombs killed the hundred thousand people in less than one minute. Todays Nuclear Weapons are more destructive. No wonder the thought of it Nuclear Attack mode sphere. Nuclear weapons are also a powerful force for peace. The century before the coming before Nuclear Weapons from 185c area of great power politics. There are numerous major wars among the great powers of the day. Theyre hugely destructive. In worldwide one over 20 Million People died. World war ii was worse. But since 1945, great wars have come to a dead stop. The United States, china german france, now russia have had their trouble and have wage wars but non have thought a shooting war against each other and almost 75 years. Was the cause of this long great power peace . Is it the democratic peace, the idea that democracies dont fight each other . No. Our International Politics in general so peaceful that major powers no longer have Serious International crises . No. Major powers have experienced numerous crises that one might think would escalate at least assisting conventional combat between their militaries, but none have in 75 years. Other factors matter but Nuclear Weapons have done more than any other to vastly lower the risk of great power war. The existence does not stop crises that serve as a pop powerful deterrent on the escalation. The very fear that makes us anxious about Nuclear Weapons also serves as a break on the outbreak of major power war. The fear so great that even a whiff of nuclear gun power provokes pressures to deescalate a crisis. Consider last summer, President Trump and through tweets and other moves that played a game of Nuclear Chicken with north korea. Its famous from the movie went to High School Teenagers drive cars headon towards each other during each other to swerve, thats what President Trump did last summer and thats why the fear of nuclear war has grown under the Trump Administration. What is happened since . North korea, and the United States have taken steps to change the game. Instead of bombing were talking about north korean athletes at the Winter Olympics at seoul. Has with major crises since 1945 a crisis among Nuclear Armed adversaries is creating pressures to dampen risk rather than escalate them. Does this mean the worry has been for nothing in the peaceful effect is so strong we should go home. No. The true danger related to Nuclear Weapons the strategic miscalculation. In the early stages of a crisis individual political leaders will overplay the hands. Bomb facilities oblivious to the possibilities are in overt nuclear escalation. This is what the debate is important. To call attention to alternative pathways to resolve tension. Its imperative to end the game of Nuclear Chicken. Not just for a few months but in a lasting way. The goal should be to use the next months the best way to do is to say, okay, you say were threat but were going to deescalate if you deescalate. He should be heading toward the straightforward deal. We should deescalate military exercises that they have been conducting annually every year for years to practice conquering every inch of north korea. In exchange for north korea deescalate a Nuclear Missile test. Starting at the olympics lets put this deal on the table and truly change the game of Nuclear Chicken into a game of mutual deescalation and use the fear of Nuclear Weapons as a force for peace. Thank you. Will turn to paula. Thank you steve and dean thank you for being here tonight, its a very important topic and im excited to be here with a great panel of my colleagues. Theres two constants in politics since 1949 the first is the presence of Nuclear Weapons the second is the presence of the north atlantic treaty organization. These things are tied together as natos first secretary general they famously remarked that to keep the americans in the russians out and to keep the germans down. When it comes to Nuclear Weapons and nato, that same formula applies. Keep in american deployed, keeping russian nukes teacher in german next tonight. With respect to keeping america next applied this is been at the center of nato since the beginning. Its why they refer to himself as a nuclear alliance. From b29 bombers in the late 1940s and 50s each were equipped with the bond to the deployment of Nuclear Forces in germany, turkey, and even belgium and netherlands and other nato allies. Keep in american Nuclear Forces on the continent has been foundational and fundamental to natos operation. That leads to the second purpose, keeping russian nukes deterred. By keeping america next appointment in europe makes it much less likely that russia would want to attempt coercion. Either by threatening with the nuclear conventional strike. If theyre stored away in south dakota russia might say theyre not really get me some so maybe we can coerce but if theyre on the front line it creates the logic of you summer loosen. The russians would be more likely to be deterred. When it comes to keeping german next to nine that was a condition for germany ten tornado. They had to not possess throw Nuclear Weapons. There remained the issue and became more important with the ending of the cold war. This is why nato did not come less important but more important. For germany to reunify it had to make a commitment to not acquire Nuclear Weapons. That was signed onto by the major powers in europe the way to do that was to make sure germany remain part of nato. I was then expanded on the fear was if they were left out on their own they would seek a future threat by bringing them into nato its offering the protection of the Nuclear Umbrella as an incentive not to acquire Nuclear Weapons. In short, nato is a nuclear alliance. In many ways it exemplifies the role of Nuclear Weapons in the world over the past 60 or 70 years. They had been at the core of natos mission and in the most recent strategic document they stated as long as theres Nuclear Weapons in the world nato will remain the nuclear alliance. I would say is lancers Nuclear Weapons in the world there will be a nato. Thank you very much. We now move to austin carson. Thank you to dean and steve and my fellow panelists. Im struck by my colleagues i feel like we should be handing Nuclear Weapons out as a force for peace them to give a different perspective. I want to focus on the threat of Nuclear Weapons and the promise they provide. Fundamentally it said technology thats incredible innovation. On the other hand it raises critical questions from day one about what we do about this technology and how do we respond to the fact that the genie is out of the bottle. Were developing a technology that threatens the species my comments will focus on how the United States and the world has managed Nuclear Technology. A look at the global architecture. In its fundamental core parts are twofold. The nct is essentially a grand bargain. Signed in 1967 divided the world into. Nuclear weapon states the nonNuclear Weapon states. The Nuclear Weapon states including the United States were granted a monopoly on Nuclear Weapons, the most destructive weapon ever developed. The second category in return for the most powerful technology ever created they were given assistance in using it for assistant purposes medical applications, Nuclear Power and a promise that they would eventually disarm. It remains an incredible bargain on one hand it was allowed to be in the hands of some states but not others some critics which india might be an important one its kind of an apartheid, the vast majority of the world said the second core piece is the International Atomic energy. Cynthiana and an International Organization designed to put the bargain into action. It helps access this and keeps Nuclear Weapon state monopoly in effect. Through safeguards system that monitors the use of Nuclear Technology to make sure theyre not diverting for military purposes my research focuses on what makes it effective or not. A key challenge in designing a global system and keep it in the hands of a few countries is identifying the cases of hidden military diversion. Its a cat and mouse game and it turns out theyre not the best hat. Very powerful resources and legal capabilities. My research focuses on a non top source of insight. Thats intelligence from governments. Countries like the United States spend billions of dollars tracking threats but trends and methods have to do with protecting undeclared Nuclear Facilities and procurement networks. This provides more insight than the iaea researchers looked at the conditions in which governments are willing to share the intelligence. On one hand they might want to say north korea has a nuclear site to develop Nuclear Weapons. On the other hand making it public makes it harder to gather the intelligence. Now we know how you figured it out. We found is that in the last 1520 years we developed routines for receiving those tips including from the United States and seen whats going on. Not advertising who they got it from her how they got it. It serves as a solution to the dilemma of how we can share the information that has implications for today. Theres new stories about the u. S. Sharing or not sharing information the bad news that we found is that this information, because its so insightful and interesting as a source of power. If the United States doesnt want to scrutinize it doesnt provide the information. You get selectivity. But if the glass is halfempty the countries that have the resources can choose when to provide it to you to provide it to. A bigger lesson is in contrast to the physical sciences soften on the innovation of discovering application of this new technology the social sciences bring its own perspective on how they have social and political implications. Institutions like the iaea shape and create social and political categories that help us make sense and manage that technology. When you have information like intelligence that helps you identify that who has that information and hopefully that will help shed light on this. Thank you for the insights, we now turn to paul. Thanks to steve and to dean woodward for putting this together. When it, at a slightly different perspective. I need to get a handle on the questions of the military and political management. Unlike it southeast it is especially since 98 which is a test of Nuclear Weapons were performed. South asia exists from deep competition and since the 1980s so looking at the introduction in this environment provides insights about the effects of technology of Nuclear Weapons, rather than three tiers are zero tears i want to talk about the tradeoffs that occur when you get the introduction what i mean by mixed record . During the cold war scholars of Nuclear Weapons introduced stability and stability paradox. This is what has characterized south asia. Stability essentially if there is a nuclear war under most scenarios there be a enormous loss of life. This induces extraordinary caution theres a feeling hopefully with no miscalculation which no conflict is likely to go. Policymakers are well aware of the challenges of the nuclear use. Thats good news. The bad news is at the same time the stability has allowed for sustained instability with interstate competition. So weve seen in last 20 years a proxy war and terrorist attack on it and to on instability. Leads to enervated escalations that could unsettled the higher level. Theres man