Course Objectives

In this course you will explore the relationship between national security policy and technology from early history to modern day. Much of the course is focused on security challenges since World War II, including current security challenges and the impact that technology plays. We will discuss regional security challenges such as those of North Korea and Northeast Asia, Iran and the Middle East, Russia, China and South Asia. We will also cover topical security areas such as nuclear weapons and nuclear proliferation, terrorism, intelligence, failed states, and biosecurity. We will look at the most pressing security challenges faced by the Obama administration. Class presentations and discussion will feature the experience of practitioners in national security and/or technology, including several guest lectures by eminent people in key areas.

Back to Top

Course Timings and Location

Classes for Fall 2009 are held every Monday and Wednesday from 4:15 PM to 5:30 PM at the Gates B1 auditorium.

This is an SCPD course. More information for SCPD students can be found here.

Back to Top

Course Requirements

This course is offered to both undergraduate and graduate students. It will have the appropriate standards and assignments. There are no specific prerequisite courses, but an interest in international security and the role of policy and technology is advised. The course is offered on-line to SCPD students. For all other students, attendance at lectures and class participation is necessary since most of the material presented is not available in textbooks. Grading is based on students’ performance on two take-home exams and a policy paper. 

Exams: Two take-home exams will be assigned to test your comprehension of the lecture material.  The first exam will be posted Monday, October 5 following class; it is due Monday, October 12 prior to class.  The second exam will be posted Monday, October 26 and will be due on Monday, November 2.

Policy Paper: During the quarter, students will be asked to write a policy paper (approximately 5 pages long), prepared as a briefing to the president, national security advisor, or equivalent senior official. The topic will be selected from materials covered in class lectures. The policy paper will be graded and returned to the student with suggestions for improving it. The student must re-submit the paper, incorporating suggested changes as appropriate, after which it will be re-graded.
Students signed up for either MS&E 193 or 293 will write a policy paper that includes, at a minimum, a baseline quantitative analysis in the form of a decision tree. Graduate students taking MS&E 293 will need to incorporate sensitivity analysis into their paper in addition to the decision tree. We will, of course, expect a more detailed analysis from graduate students than undergraduate students. There will be a tutorial on creating decision trees later in the quarter. Students are highly encouraged to meet with course TAs for one-on-one help if needed (TA office hours will be posted later in the quarter).

Grading: Your final course grade will be determined by the policy paper (50%), and two take-home exams (25% each). 

See the Paper Requirements for additional details.

Back to Top

Policy paper requirements

The paper you will be writing in MS&E 193/293 is a policy analysis paper. This is distinct from advocacy pieces in that you give a balanced analysis of a policy decision first. After that is done, then you may make your recommendation based on your own judgment. When trying to decide what to put into your analysis, place yourself in the position of the decision-maker for whom you are working. What would that decision-maker want to know to make an informed decision?

The meat of your analysis should consist of the following:

• Need/Demand Characterization: What is the need/demand? Why are we considering this decision? Why is it significant?
• Capabilities Comparison: Effectiveness of the different policy options in dealing with the need/demand (or threat).
• "Politics": How does the decision fit into the web of institutional and personal relations of the parties affected.

Finally, you will want to make a recommendation based on your analysis. In putting forward a recommendation, you will be making judgments about the information presented in the analysis. You should explain what your judgment is and why.

A good policy analysis paper covers each of the following areas (the weighting given to each section will vary depending on the topic):

• Issue Definition: The policy decision is articulated and its significance is established.
• Background: All background information (technical, political, etc.) necessary to place the decision in its proper context is given.
• Policy Options: The various policy options that the decision-maker must decide between are presented and described.
• Policy Analysis: The pros and cons of each option are explained. The value trade-offs implicit in choosing one option over another are explained.
• Recommendation: Based on the analysis, a recommendation is made. The biases and judgment factors that went into the recommendation should be explained. You should summarize your recommendation concisely at the very start of your paper.

The grading will focus on the following key qualities:

• Appropriateness: The paper should precisely address the issue.
• Clarity: The overall clarity of thought and expression.
• Assertion vs. Proof: The paper should be based on a logical argument and must not be a mere juxtaposition of statements.
• Grammar, spelling
• Format: Consistency with the format guidelines.

Technical Details:

The papers are limited to five pages. 1.5 spacing is required. We recommend using Times New Roman size 12 font with at least 1-inch margins in all directions (left, right, top, and bottom).

Outside of the page limit, please have a cover sheet with the following information:

• Name
• Student ID
• Registration Status (193 or 293)
• A Word Count

The size limit (mercilessly enforced) will be 5 pages for both graduate and undergraduate students.

Students signed up for either 193 or 293 will write a policy paper that includes, at a minimum, a baseline quantitative analysis in the form of a decision tree. Graduate students taking MS&E 293 will need to incorporate sensitivity analysis into their paper in addition to the decision tree. Not surprisingly, we expect a more detailed analysis from graduate students than undergraduate students. There will be a tutorial on creating decision trees later in the quarter. Students are highly encouraged to meet with course TAs for one-on-one help if needed (TA office hours will be posted later in the quarter).

Printer friendly version

Back to Top

Syllabus and Schedule

Monday, September 21
Prof. William J. Perry: Early History

• From Crossbow to H-Bomb, Bernard Brodie and Fawn Brodie, Indiana University Press, 1973
• Chapters 1: Antiquity, Chapter 2: Middle Ages, and Chapter 3: Impact of Gunpowder

 
Wednesday, September 23
Prof. William J. Perry: United States’ Civil War and World War I

• Geoffrey C. Ward, The Civil War: an illustrated history/George C. Ward with Ric Burns and Ken Burns, Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., American Documentaries, Inc. 1990.

Monday, September 28
Prof. William J. Perry: World War II

• David Kennedy, Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945, Ch. 18: “The War of Machines,” Oxford University Press, New York, New York (1999).

Wednesday, September 30
Prof. William J. Perry: Cold War and Offset Strategy

• William J. Perry, Desert Storm and Deterrence, Foreign Affairs, 1991 http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/19910901faessay6102/william-j-perry/desert-storm-and-deterrence.html
• William J. Perry, Military Technology: an Historical Perspective, Technology in Society, 2004
• X, Sources of Soviet Conduct, Foreign Affairs, 1947 http://fullaccess.foreignaffairs.org/19470701faessay25403/x/the-sources-of-soviet-conduct.html

Monday, October 5 (Exams assigned)
Prof. Siegfried S. Hecker: Nuclear History and Fundamentals

• Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, Touchstone/Simon &Schuster, New York, New York (1988). (For the serious student of nuclear history)

Wednesday, October 7
Prof. Siegfried S. Hecker: Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Energy, Evolution of Nuclear Threat

• Richard L. Garwin and Georges Charpak, Megawatts and Megatons: The Future of Nuclear Power and Nuclear Weapons, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois (2002). 
• David Bodansky, Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects, 2nd ed, Springer-Verlag, New York, New York (2004). (For serious student of nuclear energy and nuclear physics)

Friday, October 9 Last day to drop the class

Monday, October 12 (Exams due)
Prof. Siegfried S. Hecker: Cold War, Arms Control, Russia in Transition (Exams Due)

• S. S. Hecker, “Thoughts about an Integrated Strategy for Nuclear Cooperation with Russia,” The Nonproliferation Review, Summer 2001, 1-24 (2001). http://cns.miis.edu/npr/pdfs/heck82.htm

Wednesday, October 14
Dr. Joseph Martz: Evolution of Nuclear Arsenals, Current Nuclear Issues

• Reading material to follow

Monday, October 19
Prof. Siegfried S. Hecker: Russia and Nuclear Proliferation

• Matthew Bunn, “Securing the Bomb – 2008,” Harvard University, Managing the Atom Project, Nuclear Threat Initiative. www.nti.org/securingthebomb

Wednesday, October 21
Prof. Siegfried S. Hecker: Nonproliferation and Introduction to North Korea

• Siegfried S. Hecker, “Denuclearizing North Korea,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 64, 2, (May/June 2008) pp. 44-49.
• Siegfried S. Hecker and William Liou, “Dangerous Dealings: North Korea’s Nuclear Capabilities and the Threat of Export to Iran,” Arms Control Today, March 2007. Available at http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2007_03/heckerliou.
• Scott D. Sagan, "How to Keep the Bomb from Iran," Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2006, pp. 45-59.
• Siegfried S. Hecker, “The Risks of North Korea’s Nuclear Restart,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 12, 2009.
• Mike Chinoy, Meltdown: The Inside Story of the North Korean Nuclear Crisis, St. Martin’s Press, New York, New York (2008).

Monday, October 26 (Exams assigned)
Prof. William J. Perry: Nunn-Lugar Program, Nuclear Weapons-free World, Modern Security Threats

• Ashton Carter and William Perry, Preventive Defense, Brookings Institution Press, 1999, Chapter 1, 2, 3, 5  
• George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Samuel Nunn, Kissinger, Shultz, Perry & Nunn call for A World Free of Nuclear Weapons.  The Wall Street Journal, January 5, 2007.
• George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Samuel Nunn, Toward a Nuclear-Free World. The Wall Street Journal, January 15, 2008. http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120036422673589947.html
• Jonathan Tepperman, Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb. Newsweek, September 7, 2009, pp. 44-48.
• Michael May, The Trouble with Disarmament: Abolishing nuclear weapons is a good idea in theory.  In practice, however, it would be impossible to verify and would make the world less safe. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 64, No. 5, pp. 20-21. November/December 2009.
• Harold Brown and John Deutch, The Nuclear Disarmament Fantasy. The Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2007.
• George Perkovich and James M. Acton, ed. Abolishing Nuclear Weapons: A Debate. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Washington, D.C., 2009. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/abolishing_nuclear_weapons_debate.pdf

Wednesday, October 28
Prof. Siegfried S. Hecker and Prof. William J. Perry, North Korea and Iran

• Scott D. Sagan, "How to Keep the Bomb from Iran," Foreign Affairs, Sept/Oct 2006, pp. 45-59.

Monday, November 2 (Exams due) (Policy paper assigned)
Dr. Thomas Fingar: Intelligence: Wrong on Iraq, right on Iran (Exams due) (Problem assigned)

• Thomas Fingar, “A Tale of Two Estimates:  How Lessons from the 2002 Estimate on Iraq WMD Shaped the 2007 Iran Nuclear NIE,” Draft
• National Intelligence Council, Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction [hereafter Iraq WMD], October 2002.  Declassified key judgments released on July 18, 2003 are available at http://fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
• Central Intelligence Agency, Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programs at https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm  (Skim to compare language used in this White Paper to that used in the Estimate)
• Specific deficiencies of the Iraq WMD estimate are described at great length in Senate, Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the US Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq together with Additional Views, 108th Congress, 2d Session, S. Report 108-301, July 9, 2004 at http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_intro.htm , go to table of contents and read pages 7-28.
• National Intelligence Council, Iran Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities estimate at http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf.

Wednesday, November 4
Dr. Frank Pabian: Intelligence and Technology

• Frank Pabian, "Commercial Satellite Imagery: Another Tool in the Nonproliferation Verification and Monitoring Toolkit, Chapter 12 in Nuclear Safeguards, Security and Nonproliferation: Achieving Security with Technology and Policy, ed. James Doyle, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 2008, pp. 221-150.

Monday, November 9
Prof. Abbas Milani: Iran’s Nuclear Program: Past Contours, Future Challenges

• “Iran: Nuclear Intentions and Capabilities.” National Intelligence Estimate. November 2007. http://www.dni.gov/press_releases/20071203_release.pdf
• Abbas Milani, “Pious Populist: Understanding the Rise of Iran’s President,” Boston Review, November/December 2007, pp. 7-20. http://www.stanford.edu/~amilani/downloads/pious_populist.pdf

Wednesday, November 11
Dr. Feroz Khan: Pakistan and Security in South Asia

• Feroz Hassan Khan, “Nuclear Security in Pakistan: Separating Myth from Reality,” Arms Control Today, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 12-20 (July/ August 2009). http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_07-08/khan
• Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, “Nuclear Security in Pakistan: Reducing the Risks of Nuclear Terrorism.” Arms Control Today, Vol. 39, No. 6, pp. 6-11 (July/August 2009). http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2009_07-08/Mowatt-Larssen
• Feroz Hassan Khan and Peter R Lavoy, "Pakistan: The Dilemma of Deterrence" in Muthiah Alagappa ed. The Long Shadow: Nuclear Weapons and Security in 21st Century Asia (Stanford University Press, 2008) pp 215-240.
• Walter C. Ladwig III, “A Cold Start for Hot Wars? The Indian Army’s New Limited War Doctrine, ”International Security, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Winter 2007/08). http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/international_security/v032/32.3ladwig.html
• Peter R Lavoy, " Islamabad Nuclear Postures: Its Premises and Implementation," in Henry D. Sokolski ed. Pakistan's Nuclear Future: Worries Beyond War (Carlisle Barracks: Strategic Studies Institute, January 2008, pp 129- 165.
• Paul Kapur, Dangerous Deterrent: Nuclear Weapons Proliferation and Conflict in South Asia, (Stanford University Press, 2007).

Monday, November 16 (Policy paper due)
Prof. Martha Crenshaw: Terrorism and International Security

• Martha Crenshaw, Terrorism and Global Security in Leashing the Dogs of War: Conflict Management in a Divided World, United States Institute of Peace Press (2007).

Wednesday, November 18
Prof. Larry Diamond: Building Democracies after Conflict

• Francis Fukuyama, "Guidelines for Future Nation-Builders," pp. 231-244 in Fukuyama, ed., Nation-Building: Beyond Afghanistan and Iraq (Johns Hopkins U Press, 2006).
• Larry Diamond, “What Went Wrong and Right in Iraq,” pp. 173-195 in Fukuyama, above.
• Larry Diamond, “Promoting Democracy after Conflict,” Taiwan Journal of Democracy 2 (December 2006): 93-116. http://www.tfd.org.tw/docs/dj0202/05%20Larry%20Diamond.pdf

Monday, November 30 (Policy papers returned)
William J. Perry and Siegfried S. Hecker : North Korea, China, Iran, Zero, Wrapup

Wednesday, December 2
Paul Jackson: Biosecurity Challenges (And Prof. Hecker on guidance for re-writing policy papers)

• Department of Food Safety, Zoonoses and Foodborne Disease Cluster on Health Security and Environment World Health Organization. Terrorist Threats to Food: Guidance for Establishing and Strengthening Prevention and Response Systems. Geneva: May 2008. Available upon request. See Alistair Dawson aedawson@stanford.edu
• Paul Jackson, et al. Characterization of Bacillus cereus Isolates Associated with Fatal Pneumonias: Strains Are Closely Related to Bacillus anthracis and Harbor B. anthracis Virulence Genes. Journal of Clinical Microbiology, Sept. 2006, p. 3352–3360 Vol. 44, No. 9. Available upon request. See Alistair Dawson aedawson@stanford.edu
• Paul Jackson, et al. Fatal Pneumonia among Metalworkers Due to Inhalation Exposure to Bacillus cereus Containing Bacillus anthracis Toxin Genes. Feb 2007. Available upon request. See Alistair Dawson aedawson@stanford.edu

Monday, December 7 (Policy paper re-write due)

Printer friendly schedule

Printer friendly syllabus

Back to Top

Enrollment

Enrollment is unlimited. We recommend this class to any interested graduate student as well as interested junior and senior undergraduates.

Back to Top

Texts and References

There are no required textbooks for the course. Individual reading assignments and suggestions will be posted on the class website at http://www.stanford.edu/class/msande193/ .  URLs are also provided for some selections.  The reading materials will enhance your background understanding of the subjects and, in some cases, will give you pertinent current status of issues and challenges. Some are quite long and detailed – these are meant for students who have a serious interest in individual subjects.  

Back to Top