If you had to choose a nation to take on the power of protecting the world basically as a global police force who would you choose to take on this big responsibility? Well most of the countries are choosing the U.S. well the troops feel different on this topic they feel like it is not our duty to try and solve everyone else’s problem. They also need to help with issues that this is needed and we are the best trained and best equipped to react to any scenario. Because the united states is making two new brigades that are trained to resolve issues without violence and to depend more on social skills but still trained well enough to fight in a pinch, and we have thousands of troops deployed already as peacekeepers which are basically global police. So we already have a start on the job but what about the cost who is gonna even the costs so we arent losing money. But is the cost of all this worth it the cost of human lives worth everyone elses protection how do the men in uniform feel about being a global cop when there country is not in harm some of them feel like this “troops have a hard time dealing with the fact that their missions represent no clear threat to our national interests making it more difficult for them to be separated from their families for long periods of time”. (O’Meara) As stated before some soldiers feel this is not there job they did not join the military to be a cop they joined to be a soldier and protect their freedom no one elses. They think that a global police force would be a good thing but they want it to be a job you sign up for cause they just want their freedom to be protected cause they think it is not what they signed on for. The reason in the past 20-25 years this has become a big deal because of the past terrorist attacks, so they want to keep the terrorist groups under control.
The next issue that came up is our defense budget, if we became the global police force then it would cost us a lot of money like it already does “the U.S. defense debt is more than $280 billion more than $1000 for every man, woman, and child in the united states”.
Police Powers in N.S.W The Police Force in N.S.W must have sufficient powers so that they are able to enforce the law properly and effectively for the safety of the community and its occupants. Powers, which provide Police to maintain and enforce the law, include: stop search powers, powers of arrest, move on powers, confiscation powers and the power to obtain personal details along with various others. Search powers permit police officers, for example, who have reasonable cause to suspect that a person has unlawful custody of a dangerous implement, to search the person and to examine any other personal effects, the person in question has with them (Summary Offences Act section 28A). After this search police may confiscate the implement or implements in the possession of the person who has it in their unlawful custody (Summary Offences Act 28B). After this the officer may formally charge the person or proceed with a summons, now the person must divulge their name and address.
...would be determined only after a comprehensive review of possible implications. Moreover, as stated in the 1994 Defence White Paper, Canadian involvement would have to be cost-effective, make an unambiguous contribution to Canadian defence requirements and build upon missions already performed by the Canadian Forces, such as surveillance and communications. Also, Canadian involvement would be predicated on the proposed system being compliant with the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, or an updated treaty negotiated with Russia, as well as other arms control and disarmament agreements, protocols and arrangements.
In 2007, the city of Sydney hosted the annual Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit. With many world leaders such as then US President George Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin attending the meeting, New South Wales police force launched their largest security operation ever. APEC 2007 was a show of power and authority. At a staggering cost of AUD 150 million, the 2007 APEC Forum was the largest security operation Australian had ever seen. The police emptied the entire business district, sent in nearly five thousand police officers and erected a 5 kilometre long steel and concrete barrier to cordon off the entire area. It sounds impregnable and formidable. Yet it failed to prevent a fake Canadian motorcade with a fake Osama
We create a stronghold of power while dealing with hostile countries, asserting our dominance when needed. We need to be the leader in the world, standing in solidarity with our allies. Our military defense is an area we cannot fall behind, especially now when our freedom and protection is at high risk. The Democrats don’t want to use military force against the ISIS terrorist because they don’t want to admit taking troops out of the Middle East was a bad idea. This ideology is what’s causing us to abandon our closest allies, allowing our enemies to become stronger. Putting military force on the ground is what should have been done a long time ago, destroying ISIS before they influenced many people to join their barbaric cause.
have an army to protect us but I now feel that we should use more restraint
...ented by decision-makers in crises. First, every group meeting should have a designated devil's advocate, who will point out potential risks. Second, special care should be taken so that no one agency or coalition of experts can monopolize the flow of incoming information. Janet Reno, by allowing the FBI to monopolize the information coming to her, made it almost inevitable that she would eventually do what the FBI wanted. Finally, the virtues which make the military such an effective international killing force--such as uniformity, obedience, and group cohesion--make it especially susceptible to groupthink. For this reason, the military should have no participation in law enforcement; quasi-military units such as the FBI's HRT and the BATF SRT should be thoroughly demilitarized, and should play, at most, a very subordinate role in law-enforcement decision-making.
We will leave some recreational equipment in, but only to be used during designated times. Educational programs will be set up to let kids know about the effects of crime and drugs. It will also let children associate with actual police officers and loose that inherent fear of cops that many kids have today. Existing programs will receive more funds if they are needed. Foreign Policy: The second main issue that will be dealt with is America's foreign policies.
The security of the United State is important when it comes to keeping it a world po...
Should the government decrease military spending or should it increase military spending? This is a question that many Americans wrestle with, and politically speaking, is a point of great contention since to many, military might evokes a sense of security. However, when considering this question from a foreign policy standpoint, does current military spending really match the current level of threats faced by the United States, or are too many dollars being allocated for an unnecessary level of military strength? There are certainly cons in making the decision to drastically lower military spending, but they are minimal when compared to the positive ramifications such a decision would have. This paper aims to explore these pros and cons
Current military leadership should comprehend the nature of war in which they are engaged within a given political frame in order to develop plans that are coherent with the desired political end state. According to Clausewitz, war is an act of politics that forces an enemy to comply with certain conditions or to destroy him through the use of violence. A nation determines its vital interests, which drives national strategy to obtain or protect those interests. A country achieves those goals though the execution of one of the four elements of power, which are diplomatic, informational, military and economical means. The use of military force...
The strategy of the United States concentrates on the next five to ten years in order to protect the national interests around the global. With the increase in globalization, the ability to have a presence in all regions becomes important to national security and the United States accomplishes this by building and strengthening alliances. This promotes stability and security in the region as well. Defending the home front is the most important objective of the NSS and in order to accomplish that, continued global power projection is necessary. The NDS and NMS both seek to accomplish this through a thorough assessment of the strategic environment and applying either diplomatic or military power as necessary. The military serves as a major deterrent to potential adversaries, because of the United States’ military capability.
Obviously when talking about global security, there needs to actually be the security aspect of it. Such aspect comes from the military itself. The military’s role is to protect both the people of the public and private sectors. Due to this, the military can play the most important role of the three. With being the most important of the three, there also comes the time that needs to be put within it to make sure that this part can function at its maximum potential. Allowing the military to function at its maximum potential allows the public and private to feel at ease with their safety. This does not only constitute for the United States, but all over the entire
The future of policing is fairly clear in what direction it is heading. It has been slowly reforming to meet the needs of the people, reduce crime, and make policing more efficient. Some of the reforms that will probably take place in the future include, better educated police officers and police managers, consolidation of police departments to save on money and resources, upgraded technology, race and gender equality, better testing techniques to recruit and promote within the department, and improved proactive planning techniques. One of these proactive tools that will surely become more widely used and implemented better is community policing. It has been evolving since its first introduction into the police world and will see more reforms in the future. Compstat should also become more widely used by almost all police departments to make those in charge more accountable and for improved crime mapping.
The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power would be the UN’s ability to influence the actions of states within the UN but the state itself has the power to determine how they act. Morgenthau goes on to his next level of analysis in which he explains the difference in force and power in the international realm. Force is physical violence, the use of military power but power is so much more than that. A powerful state can control the actions of another state with the threat of force but not actually need to physical force. He believed that the ability to have power over another state simply with the threat of force was likely to be the most important element in analysis the power of as state (Kleinberg 2010, 33-34).
Members of The United Nations have a duty “to maintain international peace…in conformity with the principles of justice and international law.”[1] China, a core member of the United Nations since its formation in 1945, fails to comply with international human rights’ norms set forth by The United Nations Charter. This failure is noticeably prevalent in the practices of the Chinese Legal System. Its judicial proceedings in handling peaceful, political dissenters fail to provide the minimum protection of human rights guaranteed to all through international law. By examining accounts of Tibetans detained for such peaceful protests, this paper will set out to highlight the discrepancies between Chinese enforcement of international law in theory and in practice. Before this paper goes any further, the notion of international law must be explained. Providing a better understanding of international law will make easier the task of highlighting China’s struggles with enforcing such standards.