THE STANDARD MODEL In the view of offensive realist, John Mearsheimer’s book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, “the sad fact is that international politics have always been a ruthless and dangerous business, and it is likely to remain that way.” With the international system being anarchical, offensive realist, John Mearsheimer states in his book that, “states operating in a self-help world almost always act according to their own self-interests, and do not subordinate their interests to the interests of other states, or to the interests of the so-called international community.” The realists approach to international relations along with the international stage is called the standard security model. The standard security model rationalizes Iranian target to advance its nuclear program since, other states in the Middle East possess nuclear weapons. Using United States (US) intelligence community, it estimates that Pakistan has produced “90-110 warheads” ; none of have been deployed but instead kept in central storage. Similarly, the US intelligence community estimates Indian has around the same number of nuclear warheads, also none have been deployed, but also kept in central storage. Finally, with India and Pakistan both possessing nuclear weapon capability and with the potential of Israel as well, providing the Iranian government with more valid arguments to pursue nuclear weapons in response to increasing their national interest, which in this case is their security. INTERNATIONAL NORMS International norms on nuclear weapons have played a noteworthy role in the United States (US) and international community by attempting to get Iranian leaders to negotiate the release of their nuclear program. The first real establis... ... middle of paper ... .... http://www.jstor.org/stable/2486437 “Status of World Nuclear Forces.” Federation of American Scientists. Last modified 2013. Accessed October 28, 2013. http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html Sayah, Reza. “Iran nuclear talks: Anger, gloom in Tehran after deal falls through. CNN. Last Modified November 11, 2013. Accessed December 1, 2013. http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/11/world/meast/iran-nuclear-talks-tehran-reaction/ “The United States and the Iranian Nuclear Program: Policy Options.” Watson Institute for international studies, Brown University. Last Modified 2012. Accessed October 30, 2013. http://www.choices.edu/resources/twtn/documents/choices-twtn-iran-options.pdf Zagare, Franck C. “Game Theory.” Security Studies an Introduction 2nd Edition. Edited by Paul D. Williams. (New York, Routledge, 2013). 49-50, 52
Nuclear weapons are a problem that the world is facing today as countries want to have their
Eric Schollser argues in his paper “Today’s Nuclear Dilemma,” that the nuclear weapons in the world, and the issues that they are associated with, should be of major concern to today’s society. Nuclear Weapons were of world wide concern during the time of the Cold War. These weapons, and their ability to cause colossal devastation, brought nightmares into reality as the threat of nuclear war was a serious and imminent issue. The US and Russia both built up their inventories of these pieces of artillery, along with the rest of their arsenals, in an attempt to overpower the other. This past terror has become a renewed concern because many of the countries with these nuclear weapons in their control have started to update their collections. One
Out of all the dangerous powers and authority our government wields, possibly the most threatening powers are nuclear weapons. People tend to be frightened by things they do not understand, which make nuclear weapons a perfect catalyst for fear. These weapons have the most overwhelming and destructive power known to man; although, nuclear weapons are only safe in countries that try to maintain harmony and stability. Nuclear weapons are defined as “explosive devices whose destructive potential derives from the release of energy that accompanies the splitting or combining of atomic nuclei.” This power is both dangerous and unstable in the hands of small erratic countries.
China's nuclear weapons program has always been unique among the programs of the five official nuclear weapons states recognized by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. For a variety of economic, political, and cultural reasons, the Chinese program has had a very different trajectory of development, with different objectives, than those of the other major powers' nuclear weapons and missile programs.
In conclusion realist and liberalist theories provide contrasting views on goals and instruments of international affairs. Each theory offers reasons why state and people behave the way they do when confronted with questions such as power, anarchy, state interests and the cause of war. Realists have a pessimistic view about human nature and they see international relations as driven by a states self preservation and suggest that the primary objective of every state is to promote its national interest and that power is gained through war or the threat of military action. Liberalism on the other hand has an optimistic view about human nature and focuses on democracy and individual rights and that economic independence is achieved through cooperation among states and power is gained through lasting alliances and state interdependence.
“Most of the states expected to join a Middle Eastern WMD-free zone have signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), and all but Israel have joined the NPT as non-nuclear-weapon states.” (A. Glaser, 2015) Iran, a country stated often as rogue, lead the idea of a nuclear weapon free middle-east, while a country considered a victim of threats has openly opposed such an act. Israel enriches Plutonium, a practice Iran stated they do not intend to attempt, producing a material essential to nuclear arms. Additionally, Israel, similar to North Korea, refuses to accept the NPT, and continues to destroy the idea that “rogue” states agree the only nations attempting to acquire nuclear
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.
Mearsheimer contends that successful theories originate from logical reasoning. He elaborates by saying, “since the predicted behavior of states is derived from the theories’ assumptions, offensive realism will be ‘crippled’ if it can be demonstrated that this behavior does not follow logically from its underlying premises” (Pashakhanlou, 2013). This quote illustrates how Mearsheimer ascribes considerable importance to the power of logic, but is ironic because he himself falls short of a logical and compelling argument by means of his first assumption of an anarchic international system. In other words, Mearsheimer’s theory of offensive realism fails to deliver a persuasive argument because it egregiously focuses on anarchy rather than hierarchy. Therefore, Mearsheimer’s argument is ‘crippled’ because he has not illustrated that his assumption of anarchy goes hand-in-hand with the way states act in real life (Mearsheimer 2001).
Since its origin in 1948, North Korea has been isolated and heavily armed, with hostile relations with South Korea and Western countries. It has developed a capability to produce short- and medium-range missiles, chemical weapons, and possibly biological and nuclear weapons. In December 2002, Pyongyang lifted the freeze on its plutonium-based nuclear weapons program and expelled IAEA inspectors who had been monitoring the freeze under the Agreed Framework of October 1994. As the Bush administration was arguing its case at the United Nations for disarming Iraq, the world has been hit with alarming news of a more menacing threat: North Korea has an advanced nuclear weapons program that, U.S. officials believe, has already produced one or two nuclear bombs. As the most recent standoff with North Korea over nuclear missile-testing approaches the decompression point, the United States needs to own up to a central truth: The region of Northeast Asia will never be fully secure until the communist dictatorship of North Korea passes from the scene. After threatening to test a new, long-range missile, Pyongyang says it is willing to negotiate with "the hostile nations" opposing it. But whether the North will actually forgo its test launch is anyone's guess. North Korea first became embroiled with nuclear politics during the Korean War. Although nuclear weapons were never used in Korea, American political leaders and military commanders threatened to use nuclear weapons to end the Korean War on terms favorable to the United States. In 1958, the United States deployed nuclear weapons to South Korea for the first time, and the weapons remained there until President George Bush ordered their withdrawal in 1991. North Korean government stateme...
The creation of the study of international relations in the early 20th century has allowed multiple political theories to be compared, contrasted, debated, and argued against one another for the past century. These theories were created based on certain understandings of human principles or social nature and project these concepts onto the international system. They examine the international political structure and thrive to predict or explain how states will react under certain situations, pressures, and threats. Two of the most popular theories are known as constructivism and realism. When compared, these theories are different in many ways and argue on a range of topics. The topics include the role of the individual and the use of empirical data or science to explain rationally. They also have different ideological approaches to political structure, political groups, and the idea that international relations are in an environment of anarchy.
Historically, realism has been the dominant theory of International Relations which explains the fundamental features of international politics, inevitably associated with conflict and war (Chiaruzzi, 2012, pp. 36). Basically, there are two approaches of realism; classical realism and neorealism. Classical realists strongly emphasize on historical reality and takes its principles, orientations and practice from the account of history (Chiaruzzi, 2012, pp. 37). In contrast, neorealism is based on a scientific method by examining economic theory and philosophy of science rather than historical reflection (Chiaruzzi, 2012, pp. 41). In addition, power is central to realist perspectives of International Relations because it is crucial for the understanding of two principal issues: who can be expected to win a conflict? And, related to this, who governs international politics? (Guzzini, 2013, pp. 47). According to Morgenthau, power was the consequence of the drive for domination, the immediate aim of all political action, and the essence of international politics (Guzzini, 2013, pp. 47).
People’s ideas and assumptions about world politics shape and construct the theories that help explain world conflicts and events. These assumptions can be classified into various known theoretical perspectives; the most dominant is political realism. Political realism is the most common theoretical approach when it is in means of foreign policy and international issues. It is known as “realpolitik” and emphasis that the most important actor in global politics is the state, which pursues self-interests, security, and growing power (Ray and Kaarbo 3). Realists generally suggest that interstate cooperation is severely limited by each state’s need to guarantee its own security in a global condition of anarchy. Political realist view international politics as a struggle for power dominated by organized violence, “All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, actively involved in, or recovering from organized violence in the form of war” (Kegley 94). The downside of the political realist perspective is that their emphasis on power and self-interest is their skepticism regarding the relevance of ethical norms to relations among states.
For the most part of second half of twentieth century, realist mode of thinking had dominated the discipline of international relations (IR), at least in the United States. Scholars and diplomats such as Hans Morgenthau and Henry Kissinger steered US foreign policy towards a state centric realist ‘highway’. The main signposts on that highway, among many others, were anarchy, national security, sovereignty and power politics. However, in 1960s, realism came under attack for its lack of scientific vigor. In response to their critics, neo-realists attempted to develop their methodology on a truly ‘positivist’ grounds to account for an objective and universal ‘science’ of IR (Tickner, 1992; 11). In the subsequent decades, realist ideology, along with its dominant positivist methodology, was confronted by multiple schools of thought. Notable among these are, liberal institutionalism, Marxism, constructivism and Critical theory of Frankfort School. The particular ‘voices of dissent’ (George & Campbell, 1990; 269) under consideration in this paper, however, are postmodern and feminist responses to mainstream realist and liberal IR theory. In the light of post-structural and feminist insights to social theory and knowledge construction, the paper endeavors to build on the thesis that mainstream IR has been narrowly defined and contested by the dominant players of the field. In carrying out this narrowly defined ‘modernist’ project, it is argued here that mainstream IR has excluded multiplicity of voices and issues. Furthermore, these voices and issues not only have the potential to bring their unique insights to IR, but are also sensitive to changes in international affairs. The second part of argument flows naturally from the first prep...
Offensive realism or offensive neorealism has received a lot of attention and its main innovators is John Mearsheimer. According to the offensive realism, states act aggressively because they want to be secure, it is system that makes them to do so. States often have no reason to go in conflict with each other, they are primarily thinking about themselves. Mearsheimer have listed five assumption of international politics that supports his opinion. First of all he argued that there is no government, all states are capable to use their own force and force against other, no one state can be sure that another state would not use force to fight against, all states seek primary to keep their own territorial integrity and states are often rational actors. There are not all realist who accept Mearsheimer´s five assumption. According to Waltz, it is the nature of international politics that foreces states to focus on their own independance and that can they do by forming coalitions (Wagner, R. Harrison, 2007,
Realism philosophers such as Glaser affirm that, ‘the international system is anarchic –there is not an international authority that can enforce agreements and prevent the use of force’ . This assertion facilitates the analysis and understanding of the role that each state ought to adopt to survive in a world where the lack of authority at the highest level primes. Furthermore, such anarchism promotes the individual strengthening of the states, which in turn, are compelled to accumulate sufficient power to protect their national interests. For example, during the period of the cold war, superpowers such as the United States of America (US) and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) initiated a long-term run for the world dominance with hegemonic purposes. Finally, the success of the US and the defeat of the USSR allowed testing international relations theories and reconfiguring the world order in terms of power. This essay will analyze why Western states favor the realist approach to address security concerns. The document will present the United States of America (US) as the icon of the modern Western world. In the same way, the content will be examined under the scope of its politics and military power.