Question one The concept of security and international regimes in regulating WMDs Introduction This essay argued, after the war on terror, there are several changes in conceptualizing “Security”. Firstly, the concept of security become more complex and paradoxical in nature due to the construction of concepts by the terrorist’s strategy accompanied by globalization, and the unanticipated insecurity caused by the US’s use of military force. Secondly, despite the paradox arisen from the use of military force, a new risk-based regime has developed over the years of war on terror, broadening the notion of risk in the idea of security. Also, this essay argued it is hard to maintain our world from the risk of WMD attacks by relying on international regimes for the following reasons: Firstly, the states’ goal aims more at their strategic or economic interest than the regimes. Secondly, international regimes for nuclear assistance might cause risks since the assistance may be self-defeating in providing resources capable of making nuclear weapons. Changes of Security Primarily, a more complex and paradoxical character of security is implied by the counterproductive use of military force in tackling the global terrorism. Sawyer and Foster (2008) explained that despite restricting al Qaeda’s operation, the “Global War on Terror” has not removed the threat. Meanwhile, the terrorist group becomes more resilient because of its strategy of waging war of actions, networks, and ideas in effective responding to an antagonistic counterterrorism environment. For instance, al Qaeda creates an ideology of global jihad, making a universal identity and forming different networks for fights globally. And there is difficulty to target new members recru... ... middle of paper ... ...sistance. Reference Brown, R. L. & Kaplow, J. M. (2014). Talking Peace, Making Weapons: IAEA Technical Cooperation and Nuclear Proliferation. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1-27. Doi: 10.1177/0022002713509052 Heng, Y. & McDonagh, K. (2011). After the “War on Terror”: Regulatory States, Risk Bureaucracies and the Risk-Based Governance of Terror. International Relations, 25(3), 313-330. Kondapalli, S. (2008). Weapons of Mass Destruction Transfers in Asia: An Analysis. International Studies, 45(1), 45-73. Roger, P. (2009). Global Security after the War on Terror. London:Oxford Research Group. Retrieved 2 March, 2014 from http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/sites/default/files/GSAWTNov2009.pdf Sawyer, R. & Foster, M. (2008). The Resurgent and Persistent Threat of al Qaeda. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 618, 197-212.
On the other hand, in The Slippery Slope to Preventive War, Neta Crawford questions the arguments put forward by the Bush administration and the National Security Strategy in regard to preemptive action and war. Crawford also criticizes the Bush administration as they have failed to define rogue states and terrorists as they have “blurred the distinction” between “the terrorists and those states in which they reside”. In Crawford’s point of view, taking the battle to the terrorists as self-defence of a preemptive nature along with the failure to distinguish between terrorist and rogue states is dangerous as “preventive war
Scott D. Sagan, the author of chapter two of “More Will Be Worse”, looks back on the deep political hostilities, numerous crises, and a prolonged arms race in of the cold war, and questions “Why should we expect that the experience of future nuclear powers will be any different?” The author talks about counter arguments among scholars on the subject that the world is better off without nuclear weapons. In this chapter a scholar named Kenneth Waltz argues that “The further spread of nuclear weapons may well be a stabilizing factor in international relations.” He believes that the spread of nuclear weapons will have a positive implications in which the likely-hood of war decreases and deterrent and defensive capabilities increase. Although there
Schweitzer, Y., & Shay, S. (2003). The globalization of terror: The challenge of al-qaida and the response of the international community. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.
Nolan, Janne E. 1999. An Elusive Consensus: Nuclear Weapons and American Security After the Cold War. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.
The Purpose of this paper is to analyze the effects of the terrorist attacks that were launched against the United States of America on September the 11TH 2001. It will look at the way in which the state has since legitimized its capabilities of force and violence. From looking at the United States response to the attacks, with what is widely known as the “war on terror” it hopes to uncover evidence to suggest that the attacks permitted the United States and consequently, the United Kingdom to undergo a process of legitimization of previously illegitimate acts of violence and force, consequently, causing a breakdown of individuals civil rights and the unlawful killing of many innocent civilians. It is hypothesized that this war on terror may lay evidence to propose that Hannah Arendt’s claim that the act of war ever becoming violent is unlikely within a nuclear postmodern world and furthermore, that violence and the threat of it can no longer be used as a means to reach political goals or achieve power. It could also suggest that the war on terror has consequently led to support Weber’s theory of the “Violence Monopoly of the State” (1919:59), in which Arendt aimed to dismiss the strength of in modern times. Furthermore the apparent long-term financial gain that the United States have been said to make from the sale and export of weaponry arms used in this war on terror, alongside the monopoly of oil supplies could support Marxist theorists’ view that violence of the state is ultimately linked to the economic forces of capitalism.
Rule, James B., On evils abroad and America’s new world order. Dissent v. 46, no3 (1999): p. 50 – 57
The chosen article for critical review is the Nuclear-Armed Iran: A Difficult but Not Impossible Policy Problem by Barry R. Posen. The author of the article is a Professor of Political Science at MIT who serves as the Director of the MIT Security Studies Program and on top of that accomplishment, he has written two previous works, Inadvertent Escalation: Conventional War and Nuclear Risks and The Sources of the Military Doctrine. Barry Posen contributes an extensive amount of knowledge on the subject of nuclear weapons. Posen is well versed in the field of Political Science furthermore he is represented at a very respectable university, and his previous works regarding nuclear arms displays that he is knowledge on the topic (MIT Political Science). Over the years, there have been consistent debates, but lack of development and action on how to progress against the possible productions of nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians. This pessimistic view is not without proper concern because the leader of Iran, president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been recorded saying, 'death to Israel' so skeptics and general people alike share much concern with the development of nuclear energy in Iran. The technology would grant the opportunity to construct nuclear weapons. Which some may fear it can be used against neighbouring states in the Middle East. The state in danger of course is Israel, one of the cooperative Middle Eastern states that essentially acts in the interests of the western world, something Ahmadinejad accused them of doing, saying this is why both the UN and the United States are 'pro-israel' (YouTube Israel Off the Map). In this analysis, there may be a presence of realist biased.
The arrival of nuclear weapons transformed the international playing field permanently and new threats such as non-state actors have immerged as a result. Initially, only superpowers with nuclear arsenals had a global role as was evident during the Cold War between the U.S. and Soviet Union, but nuclear proliferation triggered a race to possess this power in the last 60 years.
Michael Walzer is an esteemed retired professor from the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. Walzer has written many books, essays, and articles. His essay, Excusing Terror, is one that best relates to the current events happening around the world. In this essay, Walzer talks about different reasons that people would want to resort to terrorism. In this essay I will argue Walzers view on Terrorism is correct in that terrorism is wrong because it is akin to murder, it is random in who it targets, and no one has immunity. I will also offer an objection to Walzer’s theory and explain why it is not a valid one.
The threat of global terrorism continues to rise with the total number of deaths reaching 32,685 in 2015, which is an 80 percent increase from 2014 (Global Index). With this said, terrorism remains a growing, and violent phenomenon that has dominated global debates. However, ‘terrorism’ remains a highly contested term; there is no global agreement on exactly what constitutes a terror act. An even more contested concept is whether to broaden the scope of terrorism to include non-state and state actors.
From the creation of nuclear weapons at the start of the Cold War to today, the world has experienced struggles fueled by the want of nuclear power. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and Iran’s nuclear weapon program are some of the most important conflicts over nuclear weapons. Thanks to the use of nuclear weapons in 1945 to end World War II, the world has come extremely close to a nuclear war, and more countries have began developing nuclear power. Unmistakably, many conflicts since the start of the Cold War have been caused by nuclear weapons, and there are many more to come.
Morgenthau goes onto his third method of analysis which is reviewing a state’s usable and unusable power. The most popular example of this is the possession of nuclear weaponry. Nuclear capabilities and that threat of their use is a form of useable power for states like the US and Russia but not for states with underdeveloped nu...
A Feminist Contribution to the study of Security in International Relations Under the International Relations(IR) model rests, a major focus, security. There are different theories on how security should be perceived. The majority defines security as the protection of the state. However, the Feminist method values security in the form of human interest over the state’s and also recognizes gender concerns within International Relations. The Feminist theory gives a very different perspective with various strengths but also holds weaknesses.
On September 11, 2001, the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon changed the mindset and the opinion of nearly every American on the one of the most vital issues in the 21st century: terrorism (Hoffman 2). Before one can begin to analyze how the United States should combat such a perverse method of political change, one must first begin to understand what terrorism is, where it is derived from, and why there is terrorism. These issues are essential in America’s analysis of this phenomenon that has revolutionized its foreign policy and changed America’s stance in the world.
Deterrence is a theory of International relations based in Realism. Essentially, it tries to explain the situation of when two or more states threaten retaliation if attacked, in order to deter the attack. It is therefore possible to very simply state deterrence as "You hit me, I hit you." For this essay, two main questions have to be addressed, ‘Has it worked?’ and ‘Does it make sense?’ To answer these questions, I will firstly define what deterrence is, I will then examine some of the main arguments for and against it, in theory and in reality; finally, I will show some of the consequences of states following such a policy. Deterrence, as already stated, can concern itself with any form of threatened counter-attack, however, for this essay, I shall be concentrating on Nuclear deterrence, using examples from the cold war, therefore, when the word ‘deterrence’ is used, it should be taken as ‘nuclear deterrence’. Hedley Bull describes deterrence as follows: "To say that country A deters country B from doing something is to imply the following: (i) That Country A conveys to Country B a threat to inflict punishment or deprivation of values if it embarks on a certain course of action; (ii) That Country B might otherwise embark on that course of action; (iii) That Country B believes that Country A has the capacity and the will to carry out the threat, and decides for this reason that the course of action is not worthwhile." Therefore, for deterrence to occur, a state must convey a message to another state, usually "these will be the public an authoritative utterances of government officials." Secondly, to use Hedley Bulls’ language, country B would consider following a course of action which Country A does not wish and does not because of the threat - not because it has no interest to. Thirdly, Country A must be able to convince Country B that it is capable of carrying out its deterrence threat and is prepared to use it. Mutual deterrence is where two or more states deter each other from following a set of actions - effectively a stand off or a stalemate between the actors. The concept of deterrence can be seen easily in public statements, for example, Churchill told Parliament on Britains hydrogen bomb was, "the deterrent upon the Soviet union by putting her....on an equality or near equality of vulnerability," a soviet ...