May 18, 2006

Political Science 894                                                                  Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Threat Perception in International Relations
Autumn 2006

Tuesday, 3:30‑6:18
 
John Mueller
bbbb@osu.edu
614‑247‑6007

Office hours, spring and summer 2006: by appointment at bbbb@osu.edu.

States regularly assess the world around them and decide to devote effort, treasure, and sometimes blood to dealing with—or “balancing against”—those elements in the world they happen to determine to be threats.  Sometimes, it appears, they get it right, sometimes they exaggerate threat, sometimes they underestimate. The course will focus on threat perception in international relations. How do nations, particularly the United States, go about determining which foreign problems require forceful response, how have they responded to them, and have there existed preferable alternative response strategies to the ones chosen? Relevant will be a consideration of the degree to which threat perception can be considered to be “objective” or to be “constructed” by emotions, preexisting mindsets, perceptual biases, and the efforts of threat entrepreneurs.

There will be consideration of threat perception before World War II, during the Cold War, and after the Cold War. For the historical cases, the questions will be: with the benefit of hindsight, did those who perceived the threat get it right? could they have done better? why did they become concerned about that particular threat? why did they neglect other elements in the international environment that could conceivably have been determined to be threatening. For the contemporary cases such as terrorism and “rogue states,” the questions will be: is it a threat? what, if anything, should be done about it? In the case of the Cold War, for example, now that we know how it all came out, were concerns about the military and subversive threat posed by international Communism—over which great energies were expended—justified? In the case of the current Iraq War, were concerns about the degree to which Saddam presented a threat inflated, and if so, why?

There will be some overlap with the course as taught over the last two years. However, that version focused very heavily on terrorism and on the risk literature. These concerns will be incorporated into the seminar, but about 80 percent of the content will be new.

The course will be conducted as a seminar with much student participation. There will be some general readings as well as weekly reports on books, articles, or topics (usually different for each student). There will be no exams, and the grade will be based on participation in the class discussion, on the weekly reports, and on a longer (15‑20 page) term paper turned in at the end of the quarter.

Weekly summaries:  These should be single‑spaced, two pages (not more). At the top of the first page, include the full reference information for the reading you are reporting on as well as your name.  These should be sent to the instructor by email attachment by 4:00 PM on the Monday before each class.

Tentative course outline:

Introduction, orientation, initial assignments

Pearl Harbor and the runup to World War II

The Cold War: the international enemy, containment, military expenditures

The Cold War: the domestic enemy, conspiracy, McCarthyism

Fears about nuclear apocalypse during the Cold War

The Iran hostage crisis; devils du jour: Nasser, Castro, Sukarno, Qaddafi, Japan's economic challenge

Concerns about "complexity" and ethnic warfare after the Cold War

Fears about “rogue states” Saddam's Iraq, Kim's North Korea, Iran

Dealing with terrorism and weapons of mass destruction after 9/11

Progress reports on student papers