Ways the Syrian Crisis Relates to this Class

Major global events have a place in any classroom in my opinion. But, the current crisis that is unfolding over the response to Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons may be directly relevant to things we are discussing in this class. Here are some possible connections that I see:

1) Policy and precedent on "weapons of mass destruction" (WMDs). Chemical weapons and nuclear weapons are both classified as WMDs, and the global reaction to the use of chemical weapons may set precedents for policy and responses to nuclear or radiological weapons.

2) Iran is watching closely. Iran allegedly has a nuclear weapons program, and the U.S. has said we will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear bomb. The U.S. reaction to Syria may be seen by Iran as a hint of the consequences if they go forward with a nuclear weapon. Here is an opinion piece from Foreign Policy magazine that discusses the reasons for and against bombing Syria, including the messages sent to Iran.

3) Power dynamic between the U.S. and Russia. We don't often hear about this, but nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons treaties, and missile defense systems are big topics of friction between the U.S. and Russia even in these post-cold-war days. Any situation that affects the relationship between these two countries may impact the next phase of nuclear treaty negotiations, and vice versa. Here's a truly bizarre thing that hints at the weirdness going on between us and the Russians right now - a New York Times editorial by the Russian president about Syria.

 4) Russia put out warnings that if the U.S. strikes Syria, we could end up hitting a nuclear facility and creating new problems. Here's a Reuters article about this.

5) As we talk about the idea of "acceptable risk" in this class, we will talk about how dangers that have particularly horrible or scary consequences are often seen to be worse than more "conventional" dangers, even when the actual number of casualties may not be as great. Lots of people right now are debating whether chemical weapons really are worse than conventional bombings and deserve a special response. See, for example, this CNN article. Similar questions could apply to thinking about whether nuclear weapons are considered useable or unusable weapons.

Want some general background?
 A Washington Post Blog post on questions you were too embarrassed to ask (it's opinionated but will catch up on the situation quickly).
A BBC Q&A on the current diplomatic crisis
Another BBC article on the alleged chemical weapons attack