Podcast appearances and mentions of Scott Sagan

From the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the authoritative guide to ensuring science and technology make life on Earth better, not worse Scott Sagan, comes in to talk about the Doomsday Clock which is is a symbol that represents the estimated likelihood of a human-made global catastrophe. All this and more in News Radio KKOBSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

History is the same thing happening over and over again, Marcus Aurelius said. There's nothing new under the sun.And yet, like all things in philosophy, the opposite idea must also be held true at the same time. The Stoics would also agree with what Stanford professor Scott Sagan once said, “Things that have never happened before happen all the time.”---In today's Daily Stoic reading, Ryan discusses the power of Marcus's assertion that "concentrating on the task before you like a Roman" is the best way to get through the day. ✉️ Sign up for the Daily Stoic email: https://dailystoic.com/dailyemail

Episode 22 - James Wirtz, PH.D - Commanding the Sea Trident Room Host Marcus Antonellis sits down and has a conversation with Naval Postgraduate Professor, James Wirtz, Ph.D. This episode was recorded on July 30, 2021. PROFESSOR JAMES WIRTZ is the author of Understanding Intelligence Failure: Warning Response and Deterrence (Routledge, 2017) and The Tet Offensive: Intelligence Failure in War (Cornell University Press, 1991, 1994); co-editor with T.V. Paul and Richard Harknett of The Absolute Weapon Revisited: Nuclear Arms and the Emerging International Order (Michigan University Press, 1998, 2000); co-editor with Peter Lavoy and Scott Sagan of Planning the Unthinkable: New Powers and their Doctrines for Using Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Weapons (Cornell University Press, 2000); co-editor with Jeffrey Larsen of Rockets' Red Glare: National Missile Defense and the Future of World Politics (Westview, 2001); co-editor with Roy Godson of Strategic Denial and Deception (Transaction, 2002); co-editor with Eliot Cohen, Colin Gray, John Baylis, and Jeannie Johnson of Strategy in the Contemporary World (Oxford, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2013, 2016, 2019, 2022); co-editor with Loch Johnson of Intelligence: Windows Into a Hidden World (Roxberry, 2004); co-editor with T.V. Paul and Michelle Fortmann of Balance of Power: Theory and Practice in the 21st Century (Stanford: 2004); co-editor with Eric Croddy of the Encyclopedia of Weapons of Mass Destruction (ABC-Clio, 2004); co-editor with Jeffrey A. Larsen of Nuclear Transformation: The New U.S. Nuclear Doctrine (Palgrave Macmillan, 2005); co-editor with Loch Johnson of Intelligence and National Security: The Secret World of Spies (Oxford 2007, 2010, 2014, 2019); co-editor with James Russell of Globalization and WMD Proliferation: Terrorism, Transnational Networks and International Security (Routledge, 2007); co-editor with Jeffrey Larsen of Stability from the Sea: Naval Roles in Peacekeeping and Humanitarian Operations (Routledge, 2009); co-editor with Jeffrey Larsen of Arms Control and Cooperative Security (Lynne Rienner, 2009), co-editor with T.V. Paul and Pat Morgan of Complex Deterrence (Chicago, 2009); co-editor with Peter Lavoy of Over the Horizon Proliferation Threats (Stanford, 2012); co-editor with Jeffrey Larsen and Eric Croddy of Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Essential Reference Guide (ABC-Clio, 2018); and co-editor with Jeffrey Larsen of U.S. Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications (Georgetown University Press 2022). The Trident Room Podcast is brought to you by the Naval Postgraduate School Alumni Association and the Naval Postgraduate School Foundation. npsfoundation.org/ For comments, suggestions, and critiques, please email us at TridentRoomPodcastHost@nps.edu, and find us online at nps.edu/tridentroompodcast. Thank you! The views expressed in this interview are those of the individuals and do not reflect the official policy or position of the U.S. Government, the Department of Defense, the US Navy, or the Naval Postgraduate School.

In the first episode of the series, Sarah and Hanna speak with Prof. Scott Sagan, who is the Caroline S.G. Munro Professor of Political Science, the Mimi and Peter Haas University Fellow in Undergraduate Education, and Senior Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation and the Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford University. The hosts discuss with Professor Sagan his recently coauthored article in International Security entitled, “The Rule of Law and the Role of Strategy in US Nuclear Doctrine.” The conversation tackles the relationship between nuclear doctrine and the law of armed conflict, related ethical and legal concerns, the implications for US policymakers and military planners, recommendations for the upcoming Nuclear Posture Review, and more generally the dangers inherent in “siloing” legal and strategic studies. Prof. Scott Sagan is a Caroline S.G. Munro Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and Senior Fellow at Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation. He is known for his research on nuclear weapons policy and nuclear disarmament, including discussions of system accidents, and has published widely on these subjects.

"Things that never happened before happen all the time." - Scott SaganIn this episode we explore how the only consistency in life is inconsistency or randomness, and how we truly don't know what's going to happen.

This newsletter is really a public policy thought-letter. While excellent newsletters on specific themes within public policy already exist, this thought-letter is about frameworks, mental models, and key ideas that will hopefully help you think about any public policy problem in imaginative ways. It seeks to answer just one question: how do I think about a particular public policy problem/solution?PS: If you enjoy listening instead of reading, we have this edition available as an audio narration on all podcasting platforms courtesy the good folks at Ad-Auris. If you have any feedback, please send it to us.- RSJWe have been trying to make sense of the three key trends dominating the global financial markets over the past 12 months - the excess liquidity in the system driven by loose monetary policies and stimulus announced by central banks the world over, the persistence of the central banks to keep interest rates at historic lows without worrying about potential inflation, and the booming equity markets that seem to be completely divorced from the ground economic realities during the pandemic. You can read some of our previous posts on these here and here.How long can these trends sustain? Who knows? The perpetual optimism on which the wheels of finance move shows no signs of abating. Now, history has shown these are trends that are neither sustainable nor safe for ordinary investors. But optimism is the opium of the masses. “This time it is different” is what you usually hear as a record new stimulus is passed or markets touch new highs. But like Scott Sagan wrote in his book, The Limits of Safety: “Things that have never happened before happen all the time.” Three Strikes And…The world is full of surprises and three events in the past quarter should give regulators and investors a pause. First, Melvin Capital lost half of its $13bn fund during the GameStop saga in January this year. Melvin had taken massive leveraged short positions against the GameStop stock convinced its business model has no future. Well, the Redditors on WallStreetBets organised themselves to do the world’s first RNS (radically networked society) driven short squeeze. Melvin couldn’t reverse out of the trade soon enough. Only an emergency line of $2.75bn from other hedge funds kept it afloat. We have covered the GameStop shenanigans here.Second, the collapse of Greensill Capital, a ‘supply chain finance’ company doing Enron-like things in a decidedly dull corner of finance. The full impact of its fallout is yet to be ascertained. The collateral damage so far has been impressive: London-based steelmaker GFG alliance (run by India-born Sanjeev Gupta) is facing an existential crisis; a German retail bank that Greensill had bought has gone down; Credit Suisse that funded Greensill through securitisation of its invoice finance arrangement had to write down huge losses; Bluestone Resources, a US-based coal mining company that’s left high and dry without Greensill’s funding pipeline; and Tokio Marine Insurance that underwrote the risks Greensill’s clients and investors in Credit Suisse funds were taking is still counting its losses. The Greensill story is a good example of how it is not different this time. Supply chain financing has been around for a long time. Company A buys goods from a smaller Supplier B and promises to pay it (say) in 90 days. Ideally, B would like to be paid immediately but it usually lacks the bargaining power. Company A would prefer to pay as late as possible since it improves its cash flow and use it to further its business. Enter C, the Supply Chain Financier. C promises to pay B faster but at a small discount as the cost of getting its money quickly. It then collects the full amount from A. In a way, C pays on behalf of A and then collects the money from A over a period of time. It is like a traditional short-term loan that’s backed by the security of the invoice. And how does C get the money to pay to the suppliers faster? Usually, C would issue commercial papers (unsecured promissory notes) to obtain funds from market participants looking to park their excess funds for a short-term to back their invoice arrangements. The spread it makes between the two is C’s business.But in a world where the liquidity is high, interest rates low and stock markets at their peaks, there’s always money looking for avenues to make some ‘extra’ return. Greensill had a perfect plan for them. Instead of issuing commercial papers, it securitised the supplier invoices into short-term assets and offered them to the likes of Credit Suisse and other asset management firms. In other words, these invoices were turned into a different financial instrument which could now be positioned differently to investors. With this, the stage was set to get into riskier bets and shuffle the risk around in a way that made investors believe they were still investing in a safe supply chain financing instrument than something more complex. These investment firms launched Greensill-linked funds and raised money from investors who were drawn to the promise of almost risk-free returns that were higher than money market funds. Greensill also got insurance companies to back the risks underlying these funds to make them appear safer and more attractive. This was mortgage-backed securities (MBS) that brought down Lehman Brothers in 2008 all over again. Not content with this, Greensill went a step further. It started advancing funds to its clients based on anticipated future invoices. That is, there was no supplier and no goods purchased. But it was giving money in anticipation of business being done with a supplier in future. In effect, it started offering long-term loans to its clients in the guise of short-term, low-risk loans with neither the insurer nor the funds like Credit Suisse being wiser to their tricks. It was only a matter of time before the house of cards would collapse. Third, the implosion of hedge fund Archegos Capital late last week caused by extreme leverage. With GameStop and Melvin Capital, the leverage was on the short. With Archegos, it was on the long side. It borrowed money from the usual Wall Street names - Nomura, Credit Suisse (again!), Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. But it used a derivative known as Total Return Swaps (TRS). The mechanics of this were simple. The hedge fund borrows money from the Bank to invest in stocks through a swap agreement. The hedge fund pays a small interest to the Bank, say, 2.5 per cent. The bank pays out any upside of investment made by the fund back to it. If there are losses, the hedge fund makes it up for the bank. This means the hedge fund makes investments without owning the asset. The bank has no real downside. The bank loves TRS because they make large fees from such arrangement without setting aside a lot of capital when compared to actual trading in securities. Being flush with liquidity in a low-interest environment makes such arrangements appear too good to resist for the banks. Things were going well for Archegos as it went about building massive levered long positions in media stocks like ViacomCBS and Discovery and various Chinese internet stocks. Some of these were quite illiquid stocks where Archegos almost owned half of the total stocks available for trade. Till ViacomCBS, whose stock had gone up 3X over the past year, decided to do a $3bn share sale wanting to capitalise on its good fortune. This backfired and the stock nosedived. This triggered a margin call and we were back to 2008 again. Archegos couldn’t cough up funds to cover the losses and the brokers dumped the shares on their behalf. The forced liquidation led to a massive selloff late last week across markets. Nomura and Credit Suisse couldn’t get out fast enough and warned of significant impact to their earnings. The worries of a contagion started going around. No one is sure if the collateral damage has been contained.Safety Valves Or Canaries?One way to look at these three events is to consider them as the safety valves of capitalism. There are excesses that happen in each cycle and the market mechanism is subverted by a few players. But there is a reckoning soon enough and the markets are better off for it.The other way is to view them as early signs of a looming crisis - the canaries in a coal mine. It is often said bubbles aren’t merely about skyrocketing valuations. The underlying truth to any bubble is the shortening of time horizons in the market. Everyone is out there to get rich and get out as quickly as possible. This snowballs very quickly attracting more short-term traders to make massive bets with levered money with ever-shrinking time horizons. The markets might well take these events into their stride (as they seem to have done). The three firms collapse and everyone moves on. That’s the end of it.Or maybe not. This might just be a beginning. HomeWork[Article] Apropos of nothing related to this post: Robin Hanson on “how best to explain UFOs if they are in fact aliens!” Get on the email list at publicpolicy.substack.com

August 6 marks the 75th anniversary of the first time nuclear weapons were used in combat, when the United States bombed Hiroshima and later, Nagasaki. Former Deputy Secretary of Energy Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall and Stanford University’s Scott Sagan join Deep Dish to examine nuclear weapons today and what Americans can do as arms control regimes falter, modernization programs move forward, and new technologies upend the logic we’ve relied on to deter the weapons’ use. 

Virginia Heffernan talks to Scott Sagan, political science professor at Stanford University known for his research on nuclear weapons policy and nuclear disarmament, about the results of his recently co-authored poll gauging Americans’ desire to go to war with North Korea. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Virginia Heffernan talks to Scott Sagan, political science professor at Standford University known for his research on nuclear weapons policy and nuclear disarmament, about the results of his recently co-authored poll gauging Americans’ desire to go to war with North Korea. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The United States-North Korea summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, was cut short and did not produce any agreement between the two countries on denuclearization. What does this outcome mean for the prospect of future diplomacy and the potential for armed conflict? Scott Sagan is a professor of political science at Stanford University, and a senior fellow at FSI and the Center for International Security and Cooperation. He has written and edited several books and articles on nuclear strategy and security, and the risks and proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide. In this episode, Sagan analyzes President Trump’s uneven relationship with Kim Jong-un, assesses potential outcomes of an armed conflict with North Korea, and presents recent polling data on the American public’s support of nuclear weapon use.

The United States-North Korea summit in Hanoi, Vietnam, was cut short and did not produce any agreement between the two countries on denuclearization. What does this outcome mean for the prospect of future diplomacy and the potential for armed conflict? Scott Sagan is a professor of political science at Stanford University, and a senior fellow at FSI and the Center for International Security and Cooperation. He has written and edited several books and articles on nuclear strategy and security, and the risks and proliferation of nuclear weapons worldwide. In this episode, Sagan analyzes President Trump’s uneven relationship with Kim Jong-un, assesses potential outcomes of an armed conflict with North Korea, and presents recent polling data on the American public’s support of nuclear weapon use.

Can two great power publications peacefully co-exist? Or are they fated to clash? And what if you throw nuclear weapons into the mix? Gideon Rose and Ryan Evans, the benevolent editorial autocrats of Foreign Affairs and War on the Rocks seek to answer these questions and more. They dive deep into a new special issue of Foreign Affairs: “Do Nuclear Weapons Matter?” The issue features a diverse range of thinkers on nuke – some of whom have also written for WOTR – including Elbridge Colby, John Mueller, Olga Oliker, Scott Sagan, Caitlin Talmadge, and Nina Tannenwald. Gideon and Ryan also dish about editing, dealing with different kinds of authors, and whether wordsmithing drives them to drink. After this display of inter-publication generosity, Ryan demands the unconditional surrender of Foreign Affairs.   Produced by Tre Hester

President Trump says the nuclear threat is behind us, but do the experts agree? Gi-Wook Shin, Scott Sagan, Kathleen Stephens, and Michael McFaul tell us about the winners and losers from the 2018 U.S.-North Korean Summit, what we should worry about, what denuclearization really means, and the eternal question: what comes next? Kathleen Stephens is the former U.S. ambassador to South Korea and a William J. Perry fellow at FSI. Scott Sagan has authored many books and articles on nuclear weapons as a senior fellow at FSI’s Center for International Security and Cooperation. Gi-Wook Shin founded the Korea Program at FSI’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, which he directs. In addition to hosting World Class, Michael McFaul is the former U.S. ambassador to Russia and current director of FSI.

President Trump says the nuclear threat is behind us, but do the experts agree? Gi-Wook Shin, Scott Sagan, Kathleen Stephens, and Michael McFaul tell us about the winners and losers from the 2018 U.S.-North Korean Summit, what we should worry about, what denuclearization really means, and the eternal question: what comes next? Kathleen Stephens is the former U.S. ambassador to South Korea and a William J. Perry fellow at FSI. Scott Sagan has authored many books and articles on nuclear weapons as a senior fellow at FSI’s Center for International Security and Cooperation. Gi-Wook Shin founded the Korea Program at FSI’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center, which he directs. In addition to hosting World Class, Michael McFaul is the former U.S. ambassador to Russia and current director of FSI.

Stanford Legal with Pam Karlan & Joe Bankman: "Working on Peace with North Korea w/ guests Allen Weiner & Scott Sagan" Allen Weiner, Director of the Stanford Program on International and Comparative Law, and Scott Sagan, Political Science Professor at Stanford and Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, talk about the nuclear summit between President Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and whether the agreement they hashed out will lead to a decline in tensions on the Korean peninsula. Originally aired on SiriusXM on June 23, 2018. Recorded at Stanford Video.

Stanford Legal with Pam Karlan & Joe Bankman: "Working on Peace with North Korea w/ guests Allen Weiner & Scott Sagan" Allen Weiner, Director of the Stanford Program on International and Comparative Law, and Scott Sagan, Political Science Professor at Stanford and Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, talk about the nuclear summit between President Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and whether the agreement they hashed out will lead to a decline in tensions on the Korean peninsula. Originally aired on SiriusXM on June 23, 2018. Recorded at Stanford Video.

In the first summit between American and North Korean leaders, President Donald Trump is scheduled to meet with Kim Jong Un in Singapore on June 12th. The stakes -- and tension -- could not be any higher, but the meeting is shrouded in uncertainty. In this week’s episode, we’ll discuss how American diplomacy towards North Korea has evolved through different administrations and the potential outcomes of the meeting. What incentives does each leader have, and what’s at stake for each country, to continue the negotiations and make a deal? World Affairs CEO talks with Scott Sagan, Professor of Political Science at Stanford University and Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Center for International Security and Cooperation. We want to hear from you! Please take part in a quick survey to tell us how we can improve our podcast: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/PWZ7KMW

The New York Times has a splashy interactive editorial, "Trump’s Nuclear Arsenal." It's good, but gets a few things wrong -- things that matter like Mutual Assured Destruction, Robert McNamara's famous thought experiment on sizing US nuclear forces, and how the US targets nuclear weapons. Also, they misuse decimate.   Aaron and Jeffrey talk through the problems with US nuclear policy and Jeffrey's proposal to state that the US will not use nuclear weapon against a target if a conventional one will do.   Links of Note:   The NYT Op Ed.   Jeffrey and Scott Sagan's article, and its shorter, op-ed version in the Washington Post.    Aaron's recently revived podcast, Turkey Wonk.  

Next time on Global Ethics Forum, Stanford’s Scott Sagan discusses an ethical approach to America’s nuclear weapon policy. In this excerpt, Sagan talks with journalist Randall Pinkston about the changing role of civilians with regards to control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

Next time on Global Ethics Forum, Stanford’s Scott Sagan discusses an ethical approach to America’s nuclear weapon policy. In this excerpt, Sagan talks with journalist Randall Pinkston about the changing role of civilians with regards to control of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.

The greatest dangers to your organization may come from the inside. Security expert Matthew Bunn joins CISAC's Amy Zegart and Scott Sagan to explain.

The greatest dangers to your organization may come from the inside. Security expert Matthew Bunn joins CISAC's Amy Zegart and Scott Sagan to explain.

Are nukes ever OK to use? How can you fight insurgency without fighting civilians? FSI scholars Scott Sagan, Joe Felter and Paul Wise discuss new ethical models for new kinds of conflict.

Are nukes ever OK to use? How can you fight insurgency without fighting civilians? FSI scholars Scott Sagan, Joe Felter and Paul Wise discuss new ethical models for new kinds of conflict.

Dr. Leslie Vinjamuri of SOAS University interviews Professor Scott D. Sagan of Stanford University and Professor Ben Valentino of Dartmouth on "The Nuclear Necessity Principle: Ethics, Law, and the Risk of Nuclear War". Can the use of nuclear weapons be morally justified? The Obama Administration’s 2013 nuclear weapons guidelines directed the U.S. military to ensure that all nuclear war plans “apply the principles of distinction and proportionality and seek to minimize collateral damage to civilian populations and civilian objects". At the same time, recent polls show that many Americans support using nuclear weapons first, if necessary, to avoid U.S. military casualties. What are the future risks of nuclear weapons use and how can they be minimized? Scott D. Sagan is the Caroline S.G. Munro Professor of Political Science, the Mimi and Peter Haas University Fellow in Undergraduate Education, and Senior Fellow at the Center for International Security and Cooperation and the Freeman Spogli Institute at Stanford University. He also serves as Project Chair for the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ Initiative on New Dilemmas in Ethics, Technology, and War and as Senior Advisor for the American Academy of Arts and Sciences’ Global Nuclear Future Initiative. Before joining the Stanford faculty, Sagan was a lecturer in the Department of Government at Harvard University. From 1984 to 1985, he served as special assistant to the director of the Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon. Sagan has also served as a consultant to the office of the Secretary of Defense and at the Sandia National Laboratory and the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Benjamin Valentino is an Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College. His research interests include the causes and consequences of violent conflict and American foreign and security policies. At Dartmouth he teaches courses on international relations, international security, American foreign policy, the causes and prevention of genocide and serves as co-director the Government Department Honors Program. He is also the faculty coordinator for the War and Peace Studies Program at Dartmouth’s Dickey Center for International Understanding. Professor Valentino’s book, Final Solutions: Mass Killing and Genocide in the 20th Century, received the Edgar S. Furniss Book Award for making an exceptional contribution to the study of national and international security. His work has appeared in outlets such as The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, The American Political Science Review, Security Studies, International Organization, Public Opinion Quarterly, World Politics and The Journal of Politics. He is currently working on several research projects focusing on public opinion on the use of force, civilian and military casualties in interstate wars and developing early warning models of large-scale violence against civilians.

More at http://philosophytalk.org/shows/weapons-mass-destruction. The United States recently threatened military action against Syria in response to the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons. Similar threats have been made against states suspected of trying to develop nuclear arsenals such as North Korea and Iran. Yet the U.S., the U.K., France, Russia, and China have thousands of active nuclear weapons of their own. Is there a morally significant difference between nuclear or chemical weapons and conventional weapons? Should we work toward total disarmament, or do we need these weapons as a deterrent to rogue states? What steps must we take to secure peace in a world rife with weapons of mass destruction? John and Ken go nuclear with Stanford political scientist Scott Sagan, co-author of "The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate."

Scott Sagan explains his deeply immersive International Relations simulations in which students are assigned a role such as a diplomat, military leader, politician, or scientist and engage in conferences and negotiations. (May 13, 2004)

Scott Sagan looks at the current and projected use of nuclear energy around the world and examines what this means for the future of nuclear weapons proliferation. (October 20, 2011)

As the United States takes the lead on international efforts toward a world free of nuclear weapons, Charles Ferguson, Director of the Council on Foreign Relations-sponsored Independent Task Force, and Task Force member Scott Sagan will discuss key recommendations on ways to reduce the world’s nuclear arsenal. The Task Force, co-chaired by former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry and former National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, states that while “the geopolitical conditions that would permit the global elimination of nuclear weapons do not currently exist,” steps can be taken now to diminish the danger of nuclear proliferation and nuclear use. The report also evaluates the best way to contain the threat of proliferation posed by Iran, North Korea and other potential nuclear threats.

Conversations on Peaceful Change is a series of interviews initiated by the Global Research Network on Peaceful Change (GRENPEC). On this occasion, Dr. T.V. Paul, the Founding Director of GRENPEC and the James McGill Professor of International Relations at McGill University, interviews Dr. Scott Sagan, Caroline S.G. Munro Professor of Political Science at Stanford University, and Dr. Vipin Narang, Associate Professor of Political Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the future of nuclear order.