Submit an outline/script of your episode (by December 7, 2022) and comment on others' (at least two feedbacks by December 14, 2022)

Hi! This looks very good. I'd suggest sending these questions in advance to your interviewee so that he can do some mental preparation beforehand. You might realize that you have a bit too much to cover in your own part, but well, this part you can actually record a few times, so you will see yourselves if you have enough time for everything or not. Overall, your plan looks well structured and I am looking forward to watching the result. Make sure that you stick with the time limit (you will see that it is very easy to go over). Good luck!

Albert and Marek,
I think you have a very solid and concise outline for your podcast.
It will be insightful to see if your expert gives any credence to madman theory in the current context of Putin's war. There's a lot to be explored with different actors perceptions of leaders' motives and anticipation of retaliation or use of force for preventative purposes.
You structured your podcast well- I think the podcast will flow nicely given your themes. Starting with the basic tenets of madman theory, then following with a question about psychological factors opens a lot of room for discussion in this context.
I would suggest maybe adding cultural factors of Russia and the West as points for delving into perception --what has happened historically in which Putin may believe himself to be a credible, rational actor? You mention the role of the media which is important, and adding cultural ideologies could be useful in giving weight to exploring if it's madman theory, or simply post-Soviet spillover ideology that is driving Putin's actions.
Finishing the podcast with your final question is perfect- it leaves a lot of room for speculation and stays on the theme of madman theory.
I'm quite excited to listen to your podcast with Dr. Campbell- Seremetis.

Hey guys, I think your podcast outline looks phenomenal. Introduction looks thorough, yet concise and manageable given the time constraints. As for the topic itself, I find the madman theory very fascinating and it was one of my favourite topics when I studied my bachelor's degree, so I am really looking forward to this one.

My only remark is with regards to Question 3 - if I understand it correctly you want to focus on Russian media and their potrayal of V. Putin, which is completely fine, but somehow I feel that the other side of the coin would be just as important, especially with regards to the madman theory (because the idea of a potential MADMAN would probably mostly stem from Western media).

Other than that, I don't really think I can find anything else that I would comment on, makes me kinda jealous really because me and my colleague have been struggling a little bit haha.

I am super looking forward to your podcast, best of luck.

Hi guys!

The link between madman theory and Putin's war is quite intriguing, so I'm looking forward to hearing your and Dr. Campbell-Seremetis opinions. The outline seems logical, if you'll manage to cover all the topics I think it will be a great podcast. I think this topic actually invites interdisciplinary approach, so I'm curious on what he'll answer to question 2 about analyzing the psychological factors. In question 4 I might consider including also the perspective of Russian public, just because it would be interesting to see what effect his perception of a madman in the West does to the Russian public's opinion (if somehow, magically, you'll have enough time). That's honestly the only idea I had on what to add while reading your outline, otherwise I think it's really good.

Best of luck with the interview!

I must say your structure of podcast is great. I like your introduction part, where you will explain basic concepts and remind viewers of the necessary information. With part one, I am sure that you will explain to the listeners of the podcast everything essential for the interview.

I would suggest comparing traditional Russian doctrine and Putinism as ideology and highlighting differences in regard to theories but this would not be manageable in one podcast.
By Putinism, I mean the social, political, and economic system of Russia under his rule. And maybe evaluating the effects of Putinism in conventional doctrine and nuclear one. The role of media is essential but media can work differently (using different methods and rhetoric in specific cultures) so the cultural aspect could be mentioned as well.

You chose a very interesting and important topic which is hard to put together in a meaningful way in such a short time in a podcast (50 minutes) but you did a great job picking the most essential parts. It is hard to find constructive criticism in your outline. Your interview question hit the spot. Cannot wait to listen to it this week.

Hi Matej,
It looks good and you can go ahead with the project, but I would still strongly recommend not going that much into technical detail with each weapon system and instead elaborating a bit more on the theory and policy implications of these weapons – what you have there at the moment barely scratches the surface. You can discuss the issue of entanglement of conventional and nuclear strategic systems, the discrimination issue, strategic stability, escalation risks, more on arms control issues, etc. I know that you want to have some of these discussions in part 3 but consider expanding also part 1 and 2 with some of these broader debates so that the podcast does not end up being too technical/niche. The technical debate is, obviously, important; but as social scientists, we need to be able to understand the technical background and simultaneously be able to connect it with broader theories we work with and lay out the key policy implications that stem from them.

Anyway, it is a fascinating topic, let me know after the interview how did it go!

Michal

Hi Matej, I enjoyed reading your podcast outline, I think the topic is very interesting and important. I like how deep you dive into the technical aspect of nuclear weapons, something which we need to be familiar with in order to fully understand the politics and undercurrents of proliferation. Furthermore, as I believe that most podcasts (including ours) will be more oriented towards domestic and foreign policy implications, it is refreshing and educating to learn about the weapons system themselves.
However, I am afraid that you may be going too much in depth at certain points. In other words, considering our time constraints, it is likely that your expert will either a) not have enough time to answer all questions, or b) in attempting to answer all the questions, will do so superficially in order to respect the time limit. Therefore, I would suggest you single out 5-6 questions which you find most relevant and interesting, and give them their due time and attention. You can keep the other questions in reserve, and pose them if there is still time remaining.
Hope this helps! Good luck

Hi Matej!

I really like your topic idea, and your outline looks extremely informative, especially with a lot of stuff I have little to no idea about! I think the first comment I would make, is that you make sure that all the technical talk for the weapons/delivery systems/etc is clear and simple enough for the audience to understand. You seem to have really good questions for tim, and I think its great that you are asking questions that are very specific to his expertise in the technical aspects. I would be careful about time though, as you have a lot of questions, so make sure you know which ones are most important so he can definatley answer those. You could also talk more about the theory of proliferation, and how new technology (offensive and defensive) encourages proliferating the nuclear standoff, as everytime there is a new technology, there is new counter-technology- I know you mention this, but maybe make it more clear about how it links to the theory.

Overall I think its a really great outline, and you have a lot of information which I don't know much about so I'm quite excited to listen to it! Good luck!

Hi Matej,
Fingers crossed for you this week.
I like your topic because it is something else in comparison to others in this class. It is a very interesting topic and its relevance will only increase in this decade. I am a little bit concerned that this outline is too technical and will present information hard to grasp for an average listener of a podcast with very limited knowledge. As my colleagues stated before me you should maybe focus more on the theoretical aspect than technology in detail. The time of your podcast timeline is overwhelming. I am sure you have vast knowledge which you wanna share with other people but not many people can keep up with the information for such a long time, especially on a topic so difficult to understand.
Your question mentioned are good and well said but there are just too many. I would recommend having a maximum of 8 questions so the guest can give you satisfying answers. But I am sure you will rise to the challenge and manage it. For me, it will be very beneficial because I am a little lost in technology and a deeper understanding of this issue might bring a new perspective for me. Good luck with recording the podcast.

Hi Damjan and Alison,
Looks good! A few minor points below:

– it is important that in your intro part, you place the recent Chinese nuclear developments in the broader context of ongoing power shifts, the issue of rising China, and the resulting escalation risks in the region (-> mainly the issue of Taiwan). Everyone was following the tensions regarding Taiwan this year, so making the respective linkage will make the whole issue much more relatable for your listeners.
– I do not think that you need to go into too much detail with Sagan's proliferation models. I think that framing it more generally as an issue of security/Chinese domestic politics/prestige is quite intuitive, and you can use these simple terms without going too much into the theoretical debate (it would just take up too much precious time)
– "China’s goal is to achieve nuclear parity with the US and Russia." – we do not know that; you should treat this merely as an assumption or even an open question to address in the interview
– I feel that in question 5, you will be asking again about possible reasons for Chinese buildup, which you will likely have addressed in previous questions by then. Make sure you do not get too cyclical with your questions. Consider perhaps the CTBT question instead; that's actually really interesting. Or the possible reactions from the side of the United States.

Good luck with the interview, looking forward to watching it

Michal

Hey guys, I find the topic super relevant, especially with what has been going on around Taiwan and China's more assertive stance in regards to international politics.

As with my remarks, I am obviously no expert on podcast lenght and timing, but I feel that you might get caught up in some of the question (especially with your well thought out follow ups on certain topics) and could struggle to actually fit into the time frame rather than not having enough to talk about. However, I could be wrong in this one and I think that having those back up question in case you actually DO run out of things to talk about is a great failsafe.

Also, I think that there should at least be a mention of how other regional actors view this development in China's nuclear policy, not only the US, although I understand that is probably not the main focus of your podcast. Or maybe you plan to talk about it in your introduction, which would possibly be perfect for it.

All in all I think your topic is very interesting, relevant, and your outline shows great promise for an amazing, really well thought out podcast. Good luck guys.

Hi Allison and Damjan,
I found your project super interesting and I would love to see it. Here are my few notes. 1) maybe should be useful to shortly comment the new annual DoD report about China (here: https://www.defense.gov/News/Releases/Release/Article/3230516/2022-report-on-military-and-security-developments-involving-the-peoples-republi/ ). It is very useful for basic understanding the capabilities and in this context, important and interesting question could be related to the ICBM production. In comparison with previous report we can see almost 100% increasing of ICBMs number. What happened, why we did not registrate something like that, what is telling to us in terms of Chinese changing nuclear posture etc. 2.) As was mentioned I am not sure about an effort to reach the parity with US and Russia, this could be formulated in a broader context of Chinese nuclear policy/ies and posture. 3.) What seems interesting to me and if you consider it same, you can raise a question about Russo-Chinese relations in this issue, especially looking at common strategic bomber patrol in South Korean ADIZ. 4.) maybe my last recommendation – in case of Taiwan – you could focus on Chinese A2/AD approach and what are the nuclear preferable strategies and postures according to Korda, it is something we don’t really know (well I don’t have some reliable information), but at least in theory, the Indo-Pacific battlefield allows the use on the lower level of escalation ladder (f.e. it is possible to destroy carrier strike group by nuclear weapon without collaterals and it shouldn’t lead to full scale escalation). It is also something which related with your first question – first use. Basically – Chinese approach to the “limited nuclear use and limited nuclear war). In this sense, my last recommendation would be – it is important to discriminate between first strike and first use, following terminology.
I am really looking forward to your project and wish you all good!
Matej Rafael.

Hi guys,

I think you have made a really good choice with your topic. The outline is well structured and I appreciate the follow-up and back-up questions you might use in case the discussion stalls. However, I would really recommend tracking the time so that you'll be able to cover most of the topics you want. I mean based on listening to academic debates, I think it's good to ask targeted questions if you really have a lot of space to cover - otherwise he might give broad answers that might be really interesting but not great time-management-wise.

The point Jiří made about including the views of regional actors (on top of the U.S. and Russia) seems quite relevant, I think there'd be no harm in including it in the introduction and you'd get to paint a bigger picture. I'd also try to mention Taiwan (maybe earlier on), because given the potential breadth of Matt's answers combined with the time limit you might not get all the way to question 5.

Best of luck! Looking forward to hearing your podcast :)

Hi Kristýna,
Looks good to me! Perhaps my only concern is that you have a lot to cover in your podcast. I believe that topics 1, 2, 3, and 4 could easily be topics for individual podcasts in a whole podcast series. M suggestion is that you cover as much as possible of topic 1 in your part – and then, with Rhys, you jump straight to "nuclear weapons and pop culture" arena (that is, you start right away with topic 2 in your interview). Then, I would advise you to follow with topic 4 (pop culture / gender) and perhaps leave topic 3 for some other time. It is not that topic 3 is uninteresting – on the contrary, it is very interesting, but it is an extensive topic by itself, and I am worried that you will not have enough space to go in-depth during this podcast episode and it would not fit that smoothly with topics 2+4.

Best of luck and let me know how it goes

Hi Kristyna,
Your topic is very interesting, and often overlooked, so I'm looking forward to learning about the framing and portrayal of nuclear weapons in pop culture. The way we perceive the nuclear landscape is, I believe, primarily influenced by pop culture, as most people rarely read academic writing on the topic, which makes your podcast very relevant. On the other hand, I must agree with professor Smetana that your outline may be too broad for the time we have. It would be super interesting to cover all four topics in depth, but I fear you and your expert wouldn't have the time to address each one properly. Therefore, my advice would be to skip topic 1 and briefly cover it in the intro, as it may be too general for the interview itself. I would keep the other 3 topics as they would work concomitantly to illustrate the whole picture, but perhaps try condensing them a bit. You can keep the bullet points there, and use them as sub questions ad-hoc, depending on what the expert says or doesn't say.
I wish you good luck, and am looking forward to your podcast. Hope this was helpful.

Hi Kristyna,
I think your looking into nuclear weapons as portrayed in pop culture will be interesting because this is what the "common man" sees.
I'm not sure that Topic 1 is super necessary, as "politics and pop culture" may detract from the main focus of your podcast which is the portrayal of nuclear weapons in pop culture. Of course the topics influence one another, but I think it may be best to focus on how these weapons are portrayed rather than pop culture as a whole, since your audience may have sufficient info about that already. That's just an idea of mine.
It may be interesting to include how different states' present nuclear weapons in pop culture--is there one country where nuclear weapons are hardly mentioned or represented?
I'm personally interested in your Topic 4 about how nuclear weapons are gendered.
I think you have a really solid outline and I'm excited to hear the discussion with Rhys Crilley.

Hi,
it's nice to see someone will cover such an attractive aspect of the world politics such as public perception of it. Since I make a podcast about the madman theory, which revolves heavily around perception and misperception, I am really intrigued what you'll come up with.
If I were you, I would try to focus more on a few specific cases, such as let's say the film Peacemaker from 1997, starring George Clooney and Nicole Kidman. Based on these examples, I would discuss how mentioned art reflected the time period of its creation.
Besides film, analysing the role of social and generally massmedia is crucial for your topic and I can't wait to see how will your debate with the expert develop.
Considering gender problematics, I find using it unnecessary for the issue you strive to explore. Sure, both in the film and in the actual world, you may commonly find male rather than female leaders threatening to use nukes or sitting in a smoke-filled conference room discussing strategy. But trying to find a link in-between I consider dead end, thus not worth of the precious time of your interview.
Nevertheless, consider my notions only as friendly suggestions and make it how you see fit. Most importantly enjoy yourself!
Cheers,
Albert.

Dear Kristýna,
it seems like your podcast attracts a lot of attention already, including mine. I think your outline is impressive, very nice. A lot of points were mentioned here, so I do not want to repeat the points alrady meant. I think you face the same problem as we do -- how to stick to the topic at hand while also wanting to explore more. I think maybe it would be a good idea in your case to think about the "bonus episode", but your structure already points well to that direction. I strongly disagree with Albert that focusing on gender disproportions is a dead end, and I find it a nice overlap of your podcast, however, given the time limitations, I would suggest including it in bonuses.

Apart from these concerns, I think your podcast will be really good and I look forward to it.

Hi Jiří and Jiří,
Your topic seems to me very interesting.
I like your approach to the topic, which is mainly legally and state to state interaction oriented in a system of IR, let say, between neoliberalism and neorealism (seems to me). I would like to shortly comment it and make some recommendations. In a part (5.) where you are interviewing the guest about security implications and regional rivals you can also mention Pakistan (and inherently China), which is something usually forgotten in this discussion. Saudi Arabia is of course strongly linked to the US, but also has (I would say almost strategic) partnership with Pakistan (for example at least 30% of saudi jet fighters pilots are Pakistanis). This is also something which could play some role in potential proliferation and shape the relations and nuclear stuffs too. (But just recommendation, it is completely upon you).
My second recommendation is to shortly discuss Israeli nuclear policy and strategy. Israel destroyed Iraqi nuclear facilities by air strike (Operation Opera) and claims that If Iran gets the bomb they will destroy it. According to some relevant sources, Israel used the nuclear threat in Yom Kipur War as a coercion mechanism on USA, but they were probably prepared to use it as a very much of existence of state stake situation. Israeli posture is qualitatively different from the others, also because the permanent fear of conventional escalation. So this could be interesting and important to shortly comment.
That’s briefly all of me and I am looking forward to your podcast!
Matej Rafael.

Hi,
Looks good to me! A few minor points:
– in your part, you can indeed comment (briefly!) on international reactions to the Israeli acquisition of NWs; however, arguably more important is to provide a "big picture" of where Israel stands with respect to the global nuclear order. You will be asking about the "possibility of joining the NPT" in the interview, so your intro part should comment briefly on the reasons why Israel did not become a NWS under the NPT and elaborate on the Israeli de facto nuclear status as a long-time contentious issue in the NPT debates (especially for some of the Arab states and for Iran). You could even mention the long time (unsuccessful) efforts to establish a WMD Free Zone in the Middle East, an initiative driven strongly by the dissatisfaction of some states with the fact that Israel remains a nuclear-armed state
– What you call the "main part" remains still a bit too vague for me (even at this stage). It is unclear to me if you really want to approach this as a broader discussion of the impacts of Israeli nuclear posture in the region and to what extent you want to talk about specific cases – from Iraq in the 1980s to Iran today. If you really want to stay on the more general level, I am fine with that, but you should elaborate on your structure to make sure you don't get stuck with those few questions you have at this point. If you do want to go into more detail with specific cases (Iraq, Syria, Iran...), then try to elaborate a more detailed outline that either goes from the more general trends to specific cases or start with specific cases and work your way up to the more general level. I am fine with either way, but you should make sure to have a bit more concrete plan before you go live.

Anyway, it's a fascinating topic (if you have time one day in future, you should read Avner Cohen's work on this issue), so I am really looking forward to the result.

Michal

Hello there,
I very appreciate your mission to uncover shades all over the Israeli nuclear programme. I know what you guys told me about your professor and expert and I look forward to get in touch with his knowledge.
Considering your outline, I would definitelly urge you to decide whether you want to analyze a specific case in form of the details about the Israeli nukes, or try to put the knowledge about in into the regional or world wide frame. I personally would choose regional perspective, that means focus on Israel -> Middle East relationship.
When discussing the issue I mentioned I'd prefer, it could be also interesting to reflect the new Netanyahu government. Since some of its members are sometimes infamously known for controversial statements and actions regarding non-jewish population of the region, I wonder how will they approach their new responsibility since they have access to such destructive power.
All in all, it's up to you. I'll be glad to see the final product anyways.
Take care and have fun,
Albert.

Jiri & Jiri,

I really like the topic of your podcast, as it is something I would like to know more about. So, from the point of viewer I would enjoy if you would keep the topic maybe more general - mainly providing what is actually Israel's nuclear policy and its implications for the Middle East. I searched quickly on Youtube and could not find (with a half exeception) a good video about the general nuclear policy of Israel, therefore I think you can consider focusing just on the 4th point. My point is, that you do not have to get into so much detail and maybe consider providing more of an overview - that can be interesting too (at least from my point of view). I assume your podcast is still "work in progress", thus I hope that some points from a possible viewer helped a little at least.

Best wishes, and I hope you will decide soon (either way I will gladly listen to your podcast).

Mark

Hi Jiri and Jiri, I have found your topic very interesting due to the unexplored area of Israeli nuclear program for me. I am really interested in what are You going to find out about the Israel rivals that are trying to acquire nuclear weapons as well and how do the Israelis treat them. Looking forward to the outcomes of your podcast

Hi Tomáš!
This is a good (timely!) topic – a couple of comments follow:
– a brief history of arms control since 1945 is....well...not brief :) Given the limited time you have for this discussion, I would recommend introducing the idea of strategic arms control as it emerged in the 1960s and briefly (!) review the main pillars of US-RU arms control that have been achieved since then
– for the New START, it is important for the listeners to understand the broader context in which it was adopted at the time. They should know that already under Obama/Medvedev, there were contentious issues that have not yet been fully solved and will likely reemerge in the current negotiations.
– You should also talk about the gradual disintegration of arms control architecture in the last years (INF, open skies...) and comment a bit on the decision to extend the treaty in 2021 (under Trump, it was not entirely clear if the treaty will end up being extended).
– I would encourage you to have another look at your interview structure and try to think whether you can work out some more natural/logical flow. Perhaps one idea you may consider (but don't feel forced to follow it if you don't like it!): you start with discussing the impact of the war in Ukraine on New START implementation (incl. inspections); then you ask about the current (mostly unsuccessful) attempts to begin negotiating the follow up treaty (the Russian cancellation of the talks under bilateral consultative commission etc); then you can ask about what other contentious issue the two sides will have to deal with in these negotiations beyond Ukraine war (eg, the issue of ballistic missile defense, hypersonic weapons etc); then you can discuss what would happen if the two sides do not agree on the treaty. And if you have time (and doubt you will), you can ask about the prospects of including China in future arms control agreements (big topic by itself).

In any case, best of luck, I am looking forward to your podcast!

Michal

Hi Tomas,
I like the topic you picked for your podcast, it's quite similar to mine but is more specific so I think you'll be able to really find some detailed answers about what you're looking into. In the introduction, I also like how you have given a detailed history of the treaties and arms control in general- this sets the stage nicely. I would suggest that maybe you should add all/most of the questions you PLAN to ask your guest so that if you forget during the podcast, they are on the paper and you can read them. Also, maybe you could emphasize more about how the START treaty is expiring in 2026, and due to little/no neogitations between the U.S. and Russia, it is unlikely to have a new one or extension (maybe you could ask your guest under what conditions a new START treaty compromise could be made).

I think you have a great topic and I look forward to seeing what your guest has to say! I will ask my guest a similar question about arms control and Russia Ukraine, so it will be cool to see a really in-depth about that topic with you.

Good luck!

Hi Louis,
Once again, this is a really pertinent and timely topic, I am happy that we will have a podcast on the dynamics of nuclear order. That said, I would strongly (!) recommend shortening your intro part and including only the first of the three sections (i.e., What is the Nuclear Global Order?). This is more than enough for the intro and it would simply be too superficial if you wanted to discuss more topics than what you have listed here.
The interview part, on the other hand, is structured really well and I believe you can use it without any further changes.

Looking forward to your podcast. Stephen is a great researcher and I am sure that it will be an interesting interview. Keep me posted on how it goes.

Michal