Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2021, Political Science

Serving to preserve sovereignty, guarantee survival, and facilitate freedom of action, national security is arguably the lead objective of the state. In contrast, moral norms are commonly held international rules built on morality that, among other effects, can inhibit states in their pursuit of that primary goal. The question posed here, then, is why states would willingly make national-security sacrifices for moral-normative reasons. And yet they do. In numerous wars, militaries have chosen to forego attacks on tactically and operationally valuable targets to protect civilian lives. Additionally, in militarized conflicts from World War I to the Gulf War and beyond, political and military leaders have selected their weapons not only by military value but also by categorization, what some scholars call “taboos.” These moral norms of civilian immunity and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) taboos appear to play a substantial role in state conduct, as shown by the wide-ranging statements of policymakers and commanders and real-world practical constraint. However, experimental research indicates a striking willingness among the public to both violate civilian immunity and use weapons of mass destruction if they appear militarily effective. In prior studies where participants make ex ante and post hoc evaluations of norm-violating attacks on terrorist and conventional adversaries, large numbers of participants—in some cases, well over half—endorse civilian-killing nuclear strikes. This discrepancy in findings derives in part from incomplete specification of how moral norms exist and function at the decision-making level, where adherence to, or violation of, the moral norm is determined. This dissertation uses a dual-process theory of affect and cognition to describe decision-makers' moral-normative and national-security attitudes and their effects on wartime decision-making. Moral norms appear as affect-dominant attitudes, supported overwhelmingly by feelings an (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: Richard Herrmann (Advisor); Christopher Gelpi (Committee Member); Alexander Wendt (Committee Member) Subjects: International Relations; Military Studies; Political Science

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2019, Biochemistry Program, Ohio State

Chemical warfare nerve agents (CWNAs) present a global threat to both military and civilian populations. The acute toxicity of CWNAs stems from their ability to strongly inhibit cholinesterases – specifically acetylcholinesterase (AChE). This inhibition can lead to uncontrolled cholinergic cellular signaling, resulting in a cholinergic crisis and, ultimately, death. While the current FDA-approved standard of care is moderately effective when administered early, development of novel treatment strategies is necessary and was the goal that was set forth upon joining Dr. Wood's laboratory six years ago. Butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) is an enzyme which displays a high degree of structural homology to AChE. Unlike AChE, BChE appears to be a non-essential enzyme. In vivo, BChE primarily serves as a bioscavenger of toxic esters due to its ability to accommodate a wide variety of substrates within its active site. Like AChE, BChE is readily inhibited by CWNAs. Due to its high affinity for binding CWNAs and that null-BChE yields no apparent health effects, exogenous BChE has been explored as a candidate therapeutic for CWNA intoxication. Despite years of research, minimal strides have been made to develop BChE (or any other enzyme) as a therapeutically relevant catalytic bioscavenger of CWNAs. BChE is, however, in early clinical trials as a stoichiometric bioscavenger of CWNAs. Unfortunately, as a stoichiometric bioscavenger, large quantities of the protein must be administered to combat CWNA toxicity. Throughout this work are described various platforms to produce recombinant butyrylcholinesterase; an enzyme comparison study across multiple, commonly-used large animal models for organophosphate (OP) research; ultimately, culminating in previously unidentified mutations of BChE that confer catalytic degradation of the CWNA, sarin. These exciting mutations, along with corresponding future efforts, may finally lead to a novel, catalytic therapeutic to combat CWN (open full item for complete abstract)

Committee: David Wood Ph.D. (Advisor); Thomas Magliery Ph.D. (Committee Member); Hannah Shafaat Ph.D. (Committee Member); Patrice Hamel Ph.D. (Committee Member); Christopher Hadad Ph.D. (Committee Member) Subjects: Biochemistry; Biomedical Engineering

Doctor of Philosophy, The Ohio State University, 2016, History

This dissertation analyzes secret military cooperation between the Soviet Union and Germany from 1920 until 1933. Both states found themselves internationally isolated after World War I. Unable to meet their own security needs – despite immense ideological differences – they turned to each other in an unlikely partnership. Together, they established a network of secret military bases, testing grounds and laboratories inside Russia, where they jointly developed new aircraft, armored vehicles, and chemical weapons. Their work together provided a dark glimpse of the future: Soviet military intelligence reports chronicled the rise of pro-Nazi sentiment among the German officers. German intelligence in turn described the growing cult of Stalin and the scenes of mass starvation unfolding right outside the gates of their facilities in the wake of collectivization. And both sides practiced human experimentation in their joint chemical weapons facilities. But cooperation between the two states was more than just a harbinger of what was to come: the new ideas, technologies, and factories developed in this period of cooperation would serve a vital role in the course and conduct of the coming war. At its core, the interwar exchange of Russian space for German technology was a wager upon which the Second World War depended.

Committee: Jennifer Siegel (Advisor); Peter Mansoor (Committee Member); David Hoffmann (Committee Member); Alan Beyerchen (Committee Member) Subjects: History; Technology