Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-lqqdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-02T05:59:22.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Power, luck, and scholarly responsibility at the end of the world(s)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2020

Benoît Pelopidas Open the ORCID record for Benoît Pelopidas [Opens in a new window]
Benoît Pelopidas*
Affiliation:
Sciences Po, Center for International Studies (CERI), CNRS, Paris, France
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: benoit.pelopidas@sciencespo.fr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This contribution argues that the concept of protean power opens a space to think about the limits of control and knowledge about catastrophic possibilities such as nuclear war. To do so, it offers the first distinctive definition of nuclear luck, which has long been acknowledged by policy and military leaders but remains unaccounted for in scholarship. It further shows that the nuclear realm is defined by two key unknowables. However, it argues that protean power perpetuates a survivability bias which has characterized scholarship so far, before suggesting ways to overcome that bias and modify scholarly ethos to acknowledge such catastrophic possibilities.

Keywords

nuclear weaponsluckscholarly responsibilitycollapseexistential threats

Information

Type
Symposium: Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics: Edited by Jacques E. C. Hymans
Information
International Theory , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , November 2020 , pp. 459 - 470
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Acheson, Dean. 1969. “Dean Acheson's Version of Robert Kennedy's Version of the Cuban Missile Affair.” Esquire (New York, N Y ), 76–7. https://archive.esquire.com/article/1969/02/01/dean-achesons-version-of-robert-kennedys-version-of-the-cuban-missile-affairGoogle Scholar
Anders, Gunther. 1962. “Theses for the Atomic Age.” The Massachusetts Review 3 (3):493–505.Google Scholar
Andersson, Jenny. 2018. The Future of the World. Futurology, Futurists and the Struggle for the Post-Cold War Imagination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blanton, Thomas S., and Blight, James G.. 2002. “A Conversation in Havana.” Arms Control Today 32 (9):6–7.Google Scholar
Blyth, Marc, and Matthijs, Matthias. 2017. “Black Swans, Lame Ducks, and the Mystery of IPE's Missing Macro-Economy.” Review of International Political Economy 24 (2):203–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Booth, Ken. 2007. Theory of World Security. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brodie, Bernard. 1946. The Absolute Weapon: Atomic Power and World Order. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
Burke, Anthony, Fishel, Stefanie, Mitchell, Audra, Dalby, Simon and Levine, Daniel J.. 2016 “Planet Politics: A Manifesto from the end of IR.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 44 (3):499–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burke, Anthony, and Fishel, Stefanie. 2019. “Power, World Politics and Thing–Systems in the Anthropocene.” In Anthropocene Encounters: New Directions in Green Political Thinking, edited by Biermann, Frank and Lövbrand, Eva, 87–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, George Lee. 2016. Uncommon Cause: A Life at Odds with Convention. Vol. II: The Transformative Years. Denver. CO, Colorado: Outskirts Press.Google Scholar
Chaloupka, William. 1992. Knowing Nukes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Chandler, David, Cudworth, Erika, and Hobden, Stephen. 2018. “Anthropocene, Capitalocene and Liberal Cosmopolitan IR: A Reply to Burke et al.'s Planet Politics.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 46 (2):190–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, Lee. 2008. “Possibilistic Thinking: A New Conceptual Tool for Thinking about Extreme Events.” Social Research 75 (3):669–90.Google Scholar
de Maillard, Jean. 2011. L'arnaque. La Finance au–Dessus des Lois et des Règles [The Sting. Finance Above Laws and Rules]. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Deudney, Daniel. 2018. “Turbo Change: Accelerating Technological Disruption, Planetary Geopolitics and Architectonic Metaphors.” International Studies Review 20 (2):223–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Egeland, Kjølv. 2020. Spreading the Burden: How NATO Became a ‘Nuclear’ Alliance. Diplomacy & Statecraft 31 (1):143–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishel, Stefanie, Burke, Anthony, Mitchell, Audra, Dalby, Simon and Levine, Daniel J.. 2018. “Defending Planet Politics.” Millennium: Journal of International Studies 46 (2):209–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grove, Jairus. 2018. “Geopolitics of Extinction: From the Anthropocene to the Eurocene.” In Technology and World Politics, edited by McCarthy, Daniel, 204–23, London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Harrington, Anne. 2016. “Power, Violence and Nuclear Weapons.” Critical Studies on Security 4 (1):91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymans, Jacques E. C. “Introduction to the Symposium. The Concept of Protean Power: Change We Can Believe In?”, International Theory.Google Scholar
Jasanoff, Sheila, and Kim, Sang–Hyun. eds. 2015. Dreamscapes of Modernity: Sociotechnical Imaginaries and the Fabrication of Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow. New York: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
Kahn, Herman. 1962. Thinking about the Unthinkable. New York: Horizon Press.Google Scholar
Kaplan, Fred. 1983. Wizards of Armageddon. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J. and Seybert, Lucia A.. eds. 2018a. Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., and Seybert, Lucia A.. 2018b. “Uncertainty, Risk, Power and the Limits of International Relations Theory.” In Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics, edited by Katzenstein, Peter J. and Seybert, Lucia A., 27–56. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., and Seybert, Lucia A.. 2018c. “Power Complexities and Political Theory.” In Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics, edited by Katzenstein, Peter J. and Seybert, Lucia A., 267–301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J., and Nelson, Stephen C.. 2013. “Reading the Right Signals and Reading the Signals Right: IPE and the Financial Crisis of 2008.” Review of International Political Economy 20 (5):1101–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebovic, James H. 2013. Flawed Logics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned. 1994. “The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of Realism.” International Organization 48 (2):249–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leitenberg, Milton. 2018. “The Hazards of Operations Involving Nuclear Weapons During the Cold War.” Journal of Cold War Studies 20 (3):207–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leslie, John. 1998. The End of the World: The Science and Ethics of Human Extinction. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose, Lopez, Anthony, and Katemi, Peter. 2017. “Blunt not the Heart, Enrage it: The Psychology of Revenge and Deterrence.” Texas National Security Review 1 (1):69–88.Google Scholar
Mendelsohn, Barak. 2018. “Terrorism and Protean Power: How Terrorists Navigate Uncertainty.” In Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics, edited by Katzenstein, Peter J. and Seybert, Lucia A., 188–208. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyn, Carina. 2018. “Realism for Nuclear Policy Wonks.” Nonproliferation Review 25 (1–2):111–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mian, Zia, and Kütt, Moritz. 2019. “Setting the Deadline for Nuclear Weapon Destruction under the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.” Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament 1 (1):1–21.Google Scholar
Oreskes, Naomi, and Conway, Erik. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Pelopidas, Benoit. 2015a. “A Bet Portrayed as a Certainty: Reassessing the Added Deterrent Value of Nuclear Weapons.” In The War that Must Never be Fought: Dilemmas of Nuclear Deterrence, edited by Shultz, George P. and Goodby, James E., 5–55. Stanford: Hoover Press.Google Scholar
Pelopidas, Benoit. 2015b. “We all Lost the Cuban Missile Crisis.” In The Cuban Missile Crisis. A Critical Reappraisal, edited by Scott, Len and Gerald Hughes, R., 167–82. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Pelopidas, Benoit. 2016. “Nuclear Weapons Scholarship as a Case of Self-Censorship in Security Studies.” Journal of Global Security Studies 1 (4):326–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelopidas, Benoit, 2017. “The Unbearable Lightness of Luck: Three Sources of Overconfidence in the Controllability of Nuclear Crises.” European Journal of International Security 2 (2):240–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelopidas, Benoit. 2020. “The Birth of Nuclear Eternity.” In Futures, edited by Andersson, Jenny and Kemp, Sandra. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pelopidas, Benoît, and Weldes, Jutta. 2014. “UK nuclear Interests: Security, Resilience and Trident.” In British Foreign Policy and the National Interest, edited by Edmunds, Timothy, Porter, Robin and Gaskarth, Jamie, 155–71. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, William J. 2015. My Journey at the Nuclear Brink. Stanford: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pottier, Antonin. 2016. Comment les Économistes Réchauffent la Planète. [How Economists are Warming the Planet]. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
Rendall, Matthew. 2007. “Nuclear Weapons and Intergenerational Exploitation.” Security Studies 16 (4):525–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reus-Smit, Christian. 2018. “Protean Power and Revolutions in Rights.” In Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics, edited by Katzenstein, Peter J. and Seybert, Lucia A., 59–78. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ripple, William J., Christopher, Wolf, Newsome, Thomas M., Galetti, Mauro, Alamgir, Mohammed, Crist, Eileen, Mahmoud, Mahmoud I., Laurance, William F. and 15,364 scientist signatories from 184 countries. 2017. “Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice.” Bioscience 67 (12):1026–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, Nick and Kjølv, Egeland. 2018. The diplomacy of resistance: power, hegemony and nuclear disarmament. Global Change, Peace & Security 30 (2):121–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, Nick. 2019. “Inventing Nuclear Disarmament.” Critical Studies on Security 7 (1):73–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety. Organizations, Accidents and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seybert, Lucia A., and Katzenstein, Peter J.. 2018. “Protean Power and Control Power: Conceptual Analysis.” In Protean Power: Exploring the Uncertain and Unexpected in World Politics, edited by Katzenstein, Peter J. and Seybert, Lucia A., 3–26. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Gerard C. 1996. Disarming Diplomat. Lantham, MD: Madison Books.Google Scholar
Steffen, Will, Richardson, Katherine, Rockström, Johan, Cornell, Sarah E., Fetzer, Ingo, Bennett, Elena M., Biggs, Reinette, Carpenter, Stephen R., de Vries, Wim, de Wit, Cynthia A., Folke, Carl, Gerten, Dieter, Heinke, Jens, Mace, Georgina M., Persson, Linn M., Reyers, Veerabhadran Ramanathan Belinda and Sörlin, Sverker. 2015. “Sustainability. Planetary Boundaries: Guiding Human Development on a Changing Planet.” Science (New York, N.Y.) 347 (6223):736–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sylvest, Casper, and van Munster, Rens. 2016. Nuclear Realism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Taylor, N. A. J. 2018. “The Problem of Nuclear Harm for Andrew Linklater, Lorraine Elliott and Other Contemporary Cosmopolitans.” Global Society 32 (1):111–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar