International Relations Theory PDF

Anarchy: A situation where there is no central authority or government, leading to a lack of order or rules. Globalization: The process by which businesses, cultures, and economies become interconnected and interdependent on a global scale. Global politics: The study of how countries interact, inf...

Anarchy: A situation where there is no central authority or government, leading to a lack of order or rules. Globalization: The process by which businesses, cultures, and economies become interconnected and interdependent on a global scale. Global politics: The study of how countries interact, influence each other, and deal with global issues. High-value, low-probability problems: Issues that could have significant impacts if they occur, but are unlikely to happen. Intermestic: Issues that blend international and domestic politics, affecting both global relations and local concerns. Polarity: The distribution of power among countries in the international system, often categorized as unipolar, bipolar, or multipolar. Sovereignty: The authority of a state to govern itself without outside interference. States: Independent political entities with defined borders, a permanent population, and a government. Theory: A set of ideas or principles that explain how political systems work or predict political behavior. CHAPTER SUMMARY Realist Theory: Focuses on the self-interest of states, viewing power politics as the main driving force in international relations. Realists believe that promoting national interests through power is essential for safety and wisdom. Liberal Theory: Emphasizes the potential for human cooperation based on shared interests. Liberals argue that the world is moving toward a more orderly and just society and see realist policies as risky. World Systems Theory: Highlights the role of economic structures in shaping political relationships. It divides the world into economically developed (Global North) and underdeveloped (Global South) countries, arguing that the wealthy exploit the poor. Constructivism: Suggests that our understanding of global politics is shaped by social interactions and communication. Reality is seen as constructed through our relationships and shared ideas. 1. Balance of Power: A situation where countries have roughly equal power, preventing any one country from dominating others. 2. Classical Liberalism: A political philosophy that emphasizes individual freedoms, democracy, and free markets. 3. Classical Realism: A theory that sees international relations as driven by human nature, focusing on power and national interest. 4. Complex Interdependence: A concept highlighting that countries are interconnected through multiple channels (economic, social, environmental), not just military. 5. Constructivism: A theory suggesting that social realities, including political relationships, are constructed through interactions and shared ideas. 6. Dependency Theory: A theory suggesting that developing countries are kept in a state of dependency by developed nations, hindering their growth. 7. Feminist Theory: Analyzes global politics through the lens of gender, highlighting how power dynamics affect women and marginalized groups. 8. Imperialism: The practice of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, military force, or other means. 9. Liberal Internationalism: An approach advocating for cooperation among nations to promote peace, democracy, and human rights. 10. Liberalism: A broad political ideology that emphasizes individual rights, democracy, and free market economies. 11. Liberal (or Orthodox) Feminism: Focuses on achieving gender equality through legal reforms and policy changes within existing political systems. 12. Marxist Theory: A social, political, and economic theory that examines class relations and societal conflict, emphasizing the role of capitalism in creating inequality. 13. Neoliberalism: An economic and political philosophy promoting free markets, privatization, and reduced government intervention in the economy. 14. Neorealism: An evolution of classical realism, emphasizing the structure of the international system rather than human nature as the primary factor in global politics. 15. Norms: Shared expectations and rules that guide behavior in international relations, shaping how states and actors interact. 16. Positive-Sum Game: A situation in international relations where cooperation can benefit all parties involved, leading to mutual gains. 17. Rational Actors: The assumption that individuals or states act logically to maximize their benefits and minimize costs in decision-making. 18. Realism: A theory that emphasizes the competitive and conflictual side of international relations, focusing on power and national interest. 19. World Systems Theory: A framework for understanding global inequality by analyzing the relationships between core, semi-periphery, and periphery countries. 20. Zero-Sum Game: A situation in which one party's gain is exactly balanced by another party's loss, often leading to competition rather than cooperation. 21. Cold War: A prolonged period of geopolitical tension between the Soviet Union and the United States, along with their respective allies, from roughly 1947 to 1991, marked by political, military, and ideological rivalry. 22. Hard power: The use of coercive tactics, such as military force or economic sanctions, to influence the behavior of other states or actors.. 23. Individual-level analysis: An approach in political science that focuses on the actions and decisions of individual actors, such as leaders or citizens, to explain political phenomena. 24. Levels-of-analysis approach: A framework in international relations that categorizes explanations of political phenomena into three levels: individual, state, and system. 25. Multipolar system: A global political structure in which multiple states hold significant power and influence, leading to a more complex balance of power. 26. Soft power: The ability to influence others through attraction and persuasion rather than coercion, often through cultural, diplomatic, and ideological means. 27. Statecraft: The art or practice of managing state affairs, particularly in foreign policy and international relations. 28. State-level analysis: An approach that focuses on the characteristics and actions of states as the primary units of analysis in international relations. 29. System-level analysis: An approach that examines the international system as a whole, considering factors such as power dynamics, global norms, and systemic structures that influence state behavior. 30. Transaction costs: The costs associated with making an economic exchange or transaction, including negotiation, enforcement, and information gathering. 31. Transnational: Pertaining to interactions, processes, or issues that cross national boundaries, involving multiple states or actors. 32. Unipolar system: A global political structure dominated by a single superpower, leading to a significant imbalance of power in international relations 33. Authoritarian: A political system characterized by the concentration of power in a single leader or a small group, often limiting individual freedoms and political pluralism. 34. Colonialism: The practice of acquiring and maintaining control over foreign territories, often involving the exploitation of resources and the imposition of the colonizer's culture and governance. 35. Decolonization: The process through which colonies gain independence and sovereignty from colonial powers, often leading to the establishment of new nation-states. 36. Democracy: A system of government in which power is vested in the people, who exercise that power directly or through elected representatives, typically characterized by free and fair elections, civil liberties, and political equality. 37. Diplomatic Recognition: The formal acknowledgment by one state of another state's existence and legitimacy, which allows for the establishment of diplomatic relations. 38. Enlightenment: An intellectual movement in the 17th and 18th centuries that emphasized reason, individualism, and skepticism of traditional authority, significantly influencing political thought and the development of modern democratic principles. 39. Monarchism: A political ideology that advocates for the establishment or maintenance of a monarchy, where a single ruler, often hereditary, holds sovereign authority. 40. Nation: A large group of people who share a common identity, often based on language, culture, ethnicity, or history, and may seek political autonomy or recognition. 41. Nationalism: A political ideology that emphasizes the interests, culture, and identity of a nation, often advocating for self-determination and independence from external control. 42. Nation-state: A political entity characterized by a defined territory, a permanent population, a government, and recognition from other states, where the state's boundaries align with the nation's identity. 43. Popular Sovereignty: The principle that the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, emphasizing the role of the people in shaping political power. 44. State Sovereignty: The principle that a state has ultimate authority and independence over its territory and domestic affairs, free from external interference. 45. Aggression: The act of initiating conflict or hostilities, often involving the use of force against another state or group. 46. Asymmetric Warfare: A type of conflict where opposing forces differ significantly in military capabilities or strategies, often resulting in unconventional tactics by the weaker side. 47. Defensive Realism: A theory in international relations that states seek to maintain security and avoid conflict through defensive measures rather than aggressive expansion. 48. Democratic Peace: The theory that democratic nations are less likely to go to war with one another due to shared norms, values, and mutual respect for political processes. 49. Militarism: The belief or desire to maintain a strong military capability and readiness to use it aggressively to defend or promote national interests. 50. “New” Wars: Conflicts characterized by their complex causes, including ethnic, religious, and economic factors, often involving non-state actors and asymmetric tactics. 51. New World Order: A term used to describe the shift in global political dynamics after the Cold War, emphasizing multilateralism and cooperation among states. 52. Offensive Realism: A theory in international relations that suggests states are inherently aggressive and seek to maximize their power to ensure survival. 53. “Old” Wars: Traditional conflicts often characterized by conventional military engagements between nation-states with clear objectives and state actors. 54. Preemption: The act of striking first in anticipation of an imminent threat or attack, aiming to neutralize the potential danger. 55. Primordial Identities: Deeply rooted identities based on ethnicity, religion, or culture that significantly influence individuals' political behavior and group affiliations. 56. Relative Deprivation: The perception that one is worse off compared to others, which can lead to frustration and motivation for collective action or unrest. 57. Self-defense: The inherent right of individuals or states to protect themselves from imminent harm or aggression. 58. State-sponsored Terrorism: Acts of terrorism supported or conducted by a government against foreign or domestic targets to achieve political goals. 59. Terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, to achieve political or ideological objectives. 60. Transnational Terrorism: Terrorist activities that cross national boundaries, often involving organizations that operate in multiple countries and target international interests. 61. Alliances: Formal agreements between two or more states to cooperate for specific purposes, often for mutual defense or political support. 62. Arms Control: Efforts to limit or regulate the development, production, stockpiling, and use of weapons, particularly weapons of mass destruction, to enhance global security. 63. Balance of Power: A principle in international relations suggesting that national security is best maintained when military capabilities are distributed so that no one nation is strong enough to dominate all others. 64. Balancing: A strategy where states counteract a potential threat by increasing their own military capabilities or forming alliances. 65. Collective Security: A security arrangement in which states agree to take collective action against aggression or threats to peace, based on the idea that an attack on one is an attack on all. 66. Conflict Management: The process of handling disputes and tensions to prevent escalation into violent conflict, often through negotiation and diplomacy. 67. Cyberwarfare: The use of digital attacks by one nation to disrupt the computer systems of another, often targeting critical infrastructure. 68. Deterrence: A strategy aimed at preventing adversaries from taking unwanted actions by threatening severe consequences, often associated with nuclear capabilities. 69. Disarmament: The reduction or elimination of a country's military forces and weaponry, particularly weapons of mass destruction. 70. Global Security: A broad concept that encompasses various dimensions of security, including military, political, economic, environmental, and human security, at a global level. 71. Human Security: A people-centered approach to security that emphasizes protecting individuals from violence, poverty, and other threats, rather than focusing solely on state security. 72. Hybrid Warfare: A strategy that blends conventional and unconventional methods of warfare, including cyber attacks, propaganda, and irregular forces. 73. Iron Triangle: A concept in political science referring to the stable relationship between government agencies, legislative committees, and interest groups that influence policy, particularly in the defense sector. 74. National Security: The protection of a nation's sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence against external and internal threats. 75. New Security Environment: The evolving landscape of global security characterized by new threats, actors, and dynamics, such as terrorism, cyber threats, and the rise of non-state actors. 76. Nonproliferation: Efforts to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology to states or non-state actors that do not already possess them.  77. Nuclear Utilization Theory (NUT): A theory suggesting that nuclear weapons can be used effectively in warfare under certain circumstances, emphasizing their role as a deterrent as well as a tactical weapon. 78. Nuclear Weapons: Explosive devices that derive their destructive force from nuclear reactions, capable of causing massive destruction and loss of life. 79. Peace Enforcement: Military actions taken to restore peace in a conflict zone, often authorized by international organizations, to compel parties to cease hostilities. 80. Peacekeeping: The deployment of international forces to help maintain peace and security in conflict areas, typically under the auspices of the United Nations. 81. Responsibility to Protect (R2P): An international norm asserting that states have a duty to protect their populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity, with the international community stepping in if a state fails to do so. 82. Rogue State(s): Countries that are perceived to be threatening global peace and stability through their actions, often due to authoritarian governance, sponsorship of terrorism, or pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. 83. Rules of Engagement: Directives that define the circumstances and limitations under which military forces may engage in combat or use force. 84. Securitization: The process of framing an issue as a security threat, thereby justifying extraordinary measures to address it. 85. Security Dilemma: A situation where actions taken by a state to enhance its own security cause insecurity in other states, potentially leading to an arms race or conflict. 86. Weapons of Mass Destruction: A category of weapons capable of causing large-scale destruction and loss of life, including nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. Complexity - multiple different actors and one conflict - Not everything is black and white - Everything we have talked about bases itself on complexity Perceptions we share as a species 1. We all tend to be self centered. We see actions as being aimed or directed at us or being taken with us in mind -  2. We all tend to think that the motivations for our actions are clear, they are likely to be misunderstood because to us they are so obvious - 3. National leaders are fond of seeing their opponents as a coherent union when we are actually fragmented and it takes time to come to a decision in national affairs - 4. We tend to think that our actions are strained by events, they are constrained by the other actions that take place 5. Perceptions built on these types of foundations develop into mirror images, both sides develop sense of the opponent, hard to alter - Both sides are developing same sense of each other Other perceptions are built on experience and experiences differ 7 ideas of what is “right” 1. Utility of isolation a. The US is protected by oceans - Not many other places in the world experience isolation - Wars will often not come to US 2. The importance of diffusing power a. Too much in one place leads to problems b. Constitution diffused power 3. Liberalism a. Predominance of the individual b. The rights of an individual should be held with great esteem 4. Morality a. Having God by your side 5. Pragmatism a. A “can do” attitude b. We can achieve anything 6. Capitalism a. Belief in free markets 7. The idea that all good things go together a. All of the world consists of tradeoffs (benefits and negatives that come with something) Threat systems are made up of actors - Engaged in an action reaction cycle of hostile communications - Self perpetuated - Nation states- territory, keep or gain your territory (key interest) - Happens in cases of war - Economic need: stagnation is to be feared, seen as failure - Seek new markets - New sources of resources, even more sensitive to power issues - Development and Protection of our economic system, movements, key resources we keep at home - Worldview: we may want to protect it, spread it, demand that our world view receives dignity, avoidance of humiliation  - Prominent in understanding terror and war - Particularly if world views grow - Internal insecurity - how do we maintain ourselves as a coherent unit in times of change - Not a clean process - Threats may be compellent, characterized by “if you don't do this i will do that to you” - Deterrent threat characterized by “if you do this i will do that to you” - Emerge in the context of threat system and over by the interest but they are very different - Deterrence is more prevalent requires less calculations - Both run by the same logic, the logic can be illustrated in step wise form (make a calculation) - Territory, economic needs, internal insecurity, worldview make political leaders uncomfortable - Logic and communication: - Calculate, communicate, recalculate, take action, reaction - Communication can lead to conflict or violent interactions, the message has to be successfully sent & received - This is an issue, there's uncertainty - Information asymmetry - We look at the sending and receiving of threats as an interactive system, exists under huge amount of uncertainty - Miscommunication, signals not clear, it’s confusing - WW1 had lots of uncertainty which made it dangerous - Expected payoff = potential payoff - costs of achievement - sanctions imposed - Sanctions can be measured - Sanctions = threats x probability of follow through - The larger the potential pay off higher carrying it out is less cost - As payoffs increase so does the chance of taking action - As the severity of sanctions increase the chance of taking action declines - The target does not give up the target responds with a counter threat, a threat of its own, their threat is deterrent (calculated) - Threat cycle tend to spiral upward, signaling actions, the mechanisms (the material), testing behaviors - The signaling action begins with the counter communication - Threat spirals transmute themselves into conflict How to end a threat spiral - Threat spirals may also culminate in violence and also more limited and isolated form of violent activity - Isolated violence may or may not work - Surgical action - has such a clean of sense - (kill a bunch of people but were going to make sure everyone understands that the target is highly limited) - Must be convinced that getting rid of the target will solve the problem - Terrorism can be classified as limited isolated violence - Creates fear - Signals broadly with regard to capacity, not trying to use capacity  - Terrorists never seek to control territory directly, it is a strategy - Limited war - engaging in an intervention aimed at government not people - Can we successfully communicate that the war cannot extend outside of a given land - Limit the means of war, which weapons will/won't use - Another form of limited war is guerilla war - tend to blend in with population, strike where opponent is weak, don't attack where army is strong - Attack their supply lines, attack areas where they keep food for soldiers, attack their command and control structure, communications, mess with them - To defeat a guerilla opponent you need a 10:1 ratio of boots on the ground to win - Threat spirals end- general war - Threat spirals escape their controllers, individuals, side, & total number of surrender - Nationalism provides a more tightly unit, better integrative, more sources of morale, more reasons to fight, we fight for our god, our nation - Nation states get larger - The cost of winning in funds and human lives is huge - We add industrialization, more farms, mass production - Better technology, better communication, nature of war begins to change - 19th century has more modern war stuff - Era of total war - The weapons are more advanced - 3 major paradoxes 1. All sides everywhere claim they do not want war a. Most of them are being honest 2. Students of war are often baffled because war appears simultaneously conflictful and cooperative a. If we don't understand cooperation it is problematic 3. Actions taken to avoid war leads to them instead a. Perpetuates threat spiral If you have a growing power, and a declining power your likely to have problems - The balance of power- one side of fantastically dominant, the sides are equal, the other side is dominant - Doesn’t mean balance, it means any distribution of power - Process and equilibrium of processing process - It’s not likely to create the balance, it’s likely to create a lot of drama on the way to balance - Balance of power could mean dominance or search for dominance in any system - The British control the balance of power - Balance of power can also mean dominance we have a slight problem - Stability, peace in a concert of power - Balance of power can also mean instability of war (WW1) - Balance of power might be power politics in general - A universal law of history - Viewed as a system to guide for policy makers - Power is complex and situational - Power resources in one environment are not power resources in another environment - It’s empirically wrong - Conflict will occur when one state is stronger than another - Peace, stability, will occur when there is a quality of power between actors or groups - Reading out nation states system, the action in our world takes place where nation states are missing - Figures tend to argue that you must recognize the mutual lead for expansion - Balance of power- alliances are the key to power, they don’t change much - Levels of alliances depends on where you're looking for the action your going to find different reasons for the action - War begins in the minds of men - In each cell there must be an element of a word alike desire and a piece like desire - Ceremonialization whew animals will fight, when one lost it gives up - Ceremonialization is Not strong within humans - We shoot them, bomb them but we don’t tear them apart - The tendency having seen aggression is to revert to aggression more quickly - Humiliation, they try to humiliate you and embarrassed about yourself and who you truly are, and make you want to give up, and take on a different persona, persona of repressor, persona of those who are powerful, persona of those who can humiliate others, eventually the frustration that you feel is given voice there are counter movements and all of a sudden the anger strikes out at others, and that is why frustration leads to aggression - Individual, group reasons, why we might end up on conflict - We tend to be group analysts, when we sit down to make collective decisions - Groups especially when faced with stress try to narrow the decision making unit, and try to limit information, info that gets through is pushed through by individuals who are most aggressive - Governments want secure - We have to make people believe in the soviet threat - States, countries are where we ought to look for why there’s war - New powers want new rules 87. Creation of new kind of system 88. Revolutions are global, lead to war, wars lead to revolutions 89. American revolution led to French revolution (most important of revolutions) 90. 1910 Mexican revolution, complex operation 91. Colonial revolutions global conflicts 1810-1917 decolonizing revolution 92. Revolutions provide new and often fundamental actors in the world and old leaders aren’t comfortable with that 93. We have degraded the term revolution 94. Revolution overthrow by non normal and often violent means of the leadership and guiding philosophy of an area by a significant portion of its population 95. Were going to the change the values of society, its myths, sense of what is/not common knowledge, alter what we think to make sense, who we think makes sense 96. We do not have real revolution until you alter that set up values, fundamental to the old society, replaced by the odds 97. The alteration of social structure, new groups, new patterns, new strategies, new authority, prestige, replace old modes of prestige, what makes you qualified to do something, experience, your education, 98. Alteration of institutions, revolutionary runs into problems they make the argument that the institutions of society must change, because you can't run a new system on the old institutional framework, 99. New framework must reflect on the new society 100. Revolution is constituted by painful attempt to change the institutions of government, what they do, how they do it, what their roles are, what should people who organize education be trying to do, what is the proper purview of people who support police 101. We have to have a change in leadership, not just who is in power, but what kind of people are in power, what is their background, what kinds of things allow for the coordination of the new society, who should we turn to 102. Revolutions most often include the extra legal transfer of power 103. Conflict that turns into violence strange places through ogv, social order, economy 104. This alter to desire turn social norms are you ends up with bits of violence throughout society 105. Have we altered value and myths of society (do know if we have a revolution) 106. Pointed to aspiration gap the difference between what i tell your gonna get, and what you actually get (promised and what is delivered) 107. As the gap becomes larger, you find it harder to notice that you got taken advantage of (this isn’t the society you though you fought for) 108. Revolutions are more likely to occur 109. Aspiration gap model promises not kept model is interesting and fits a lot of context, but we find that aspiration gaps don't tend to explain many revolutions as we had hoped 110. Who it is, you think should be getting better awe 111. You don’t feel the aspiration gap, unless you see it emerging in the groups you think you are apart of 112. Deprivation among groups you see yourself in which causes revolution a. People in social group get more than you 113. Values in constituency- sets of social beliefs what happens when the leadership of society holds social beliefs that are so different from everyone else in society that this becomes a point of contention, the leaders engage in behaviors, you engage in different ones 114. Revolutions have emerged because values in consistency 115. Fundamental changes in way to produce necessities of life (food,clothes,shelter) and these are reproduced in certain ways but there aren’t the same changes in social relationships that allow for this 116. Social relations of production what is and what is not acceptable, don’t allow us to alter our practices, don’t allow us to efficiently produce necessities of life 117. The structures of society no longer helpful, those at top of bottom aren't getting what they want 118. Fundamental altercation in a way to reproduce necessities for life 119. Societies conflict, people start shooting each other 120. Mobilization 121. Lead, inspire, and you have to provide skills, physical, organizational 122. Does not mean your going to win 123. How do you overcome the power of the state to repress your movement? a. To seek external alliances b. 9/25 Do people mobilize against others or change? Why are free markets and thoughts so scary? Can’t we solve this with democracy or non democracy just hide? Globalization refers to 3 kinds of changes - Compression of time and space (trade, communication travel, information, goods and services cross borders more quickly and more readily) - Market interaction - The broadening of our realms of thought and experience (on going through 60s and 70s when internet became available) - The decline of 20th century late political rivalry Unfortunate side effects - Odd forms of violence - More deprivation - Soviet Union self destructed - 2 different opposing processes that are going on - (good bit) Mcworld - a coming together of our world - (bad bit) Jehad- holy war between those who see themselves as divinely good and bad - Sam Huntington said “we're gonna turn to bitter confrontations ….” something about deep seated culture beliefs - Came up with ways there are clash of civilization - Upheavals of groups who believed that they were fighting for fundamental principles which led to horrible violence - The number one rule of colonialism is to make the group hate each other - 2 forces in the world - One is good and one is evil - More competition, advantages in technology gives you real advantage - Breaks down command and forms - Gets rid of bigotry and eliminates markets - Price competitions ruins relationships - Free trade advances societies due to how wages decrease, profits increase, inequality also increases a swell - Marketization brings competition and change - Markets are jails of creative destruction - - People who control natural resources don’t handle change as good as those who handle capital and technology - Input of new thinking, global stuff closer to us in our minds 9/30  - Why intervene? - What are the impacts of intervention? - Can intervention contain and spread violence? intervention - 1 major military intervention every year ever since 1945 - Others have much less effect of revolutions - Outsiders can facilitate not create - Can deter, cannot eradicate, efforts toward revolutionary change - One state to alter or to change the direction of change in another area - Intervention is most likely when a country sees itself as a superpower and wants to maintain status quo - Power is often played out as a the perceived need to control, the more power you wish, the more you need, to control events, and when you find out you can’t do that you lose you lose your entire military force, which leads to intervention - When you contrasts interest and perception of intervene power, ongoing revolutionary movement, - The intervening state likes to take an overall view of the world in global perspective - The great power intervening state - Seeks security and stability - Sensitive to locus of support - Always looking to see how a particular movement fits into a global frame - Revolutionary - They don’t care where their support comes from - American revolution moved forward because of the French - French navy showed up and british could not move along coast - Impact of intervention - Intervenor- the effects on the home state are huge, trying to holt the adoption of widespread social changes that are radical enough to mobilize an entire population - The problem is when you have a military to fight modern wars, all the war tools are expensive, the intervention is going to cost you big time - the war cost the US 3 trillion dollars - In the intervening state there are alot of expense costs - Cost externally from other countries - Before intervention you need to think about how it’s not going to be easy - It affects both sides - Intervenee - there is no middle ground - Most of the time when there is radical social change, radicals on both sides like to fight and kill for their side - Time frame that extends infinitely - Society balances these forces but not when there is intervention - Makes it illegal to suggest that the war might end through peaceful means - Punishable by death in some places - Vast destruction, destroying, undercutting, the viability of a society - With Intervention you don’t have to, your not limited to, the war toys you can afford to create, or buy  - You now have access to fresh war toys when you need them, and where u need them - Victory or death - you either win or everyone dies - Legitimacy 124. My movement wants more or less change 125. Intervention is usually undertaken to stop some ongoing social change 126. It may have the opposite effect that you want, it's not about if you win or lose 127. The domino theory works because of intervention 10/2 What is (and is not) terrorism? What are the goals of terrorism? When does terrorism work/ not work? - We see more terror over time, not less - Most fundamentally terrorism is defined as action designed to induce sharp fear - Through that fear to get a desired outcome in a political situation - Actions are violent in nature creates most attention, as long as they create the fear they’ve accomplished what they’ve set out to do - Myth 1 - Terrorist are simply crazy and criminals - No political objectives - Most terrorist groups are well trained - They train for something serious - If you don't take them seriously then you are making a devastating mistake Myth 2 - It it often suggested that terrorism is directed towards states - Piracy - States use terror all the time especially against their people Myth 3 - It's suggested that terrorism is an strategy of utility of action - Terror is used as a tactic in war - Used in revolutions and interventions - Anti states group used terror to reach their goals Goal 1 - get attention, terrorism exists to send a message, to get noticed, to get others involved, political groups of all kinds want attention, especially true if they are under the impression that people are ignorant, and they must be educated Goal 2 - Have people perceive the group has great power - Look like you can act with impunity against powerful actors Goal 3 - Force the target to act away which makes itself less liked than before - Force them to overreact Goal 4 - Whatever is demanded by terrorist is the goal - The result the target is often secondary - Whether the target will get you attention or not is what is important - The target is to satisfy their needs and nothing really matters - Instrumentally - It is sometimes suggested to stop negotiation with terrorists 10/7 Why think about nuclear weapons again? What makes nuclear weapons different? What is second strike invulnerability? - What do we do when conflict becomes unsurvivable - Impression from 21st century - if you run a regime powerful that states don't like and you lack nuclear weapons, you will be overthrown - If you have nuclear weapons, you will survive ex: pakistan and north korea - The great powers are diverging into squabbles and eventually they will come into conflict w each other - In 2014 when russia took pieces of ukraine and are threatening nuclear warfare again - US wants to restructure east europe - Conflicts of this sort bring serious military capacity into other states - Everyone will seek weapons that will assert their dominance - New nuclear powers - Logic of nuclear weapons - logic of arms race - If you have a weapons system that works, then it is obsolete - - Nuclear weapon is deafening - Immediate blast - Can impact dozens of square miles - Ozone layer destruction - Nuclear weapons were created to help with WW2 - Avoid being preempted create an invulnerable second strike asset - no matter what the enemy does it doesn't matter because you can protect some of your weapons and once it's clear you lost you can destroy the opponent anyways, there is nothing they can do to not be destroyed - You cannot attack first if their second strike is invulnerable - - Mutual assured destruction - so you or they won't attack (destroy opponents society) - Attack schools, elders, children, traffic lights if someone attacks first, due to their government hiding, hit soft targets 10/9 NUTS? How are MAD + NUTS the same? What, me worry? - Civil defense in a mad world is an offensive weapon because if you can protect your civilization population than the mutual part might be in question - Nuts = nuclear utilization theory - Not just fight, but win a nuclear war - Create the idea of a first strike - You need to destroy the opponent first - You alter your strategy to prepare to win, use nuclear weapons to triumph, as a result you need diff kinds of weapons, decapitating the enemy, anti missile system to protect military, civil defense to decrease fatality of the enemies second strike - With MAD, you have to be prepared to destroy the earth so you don't lose, with NUTS you have to be prepared the world to WIN - Nuts is more dangerous bc policies are exclusive bc of mad - Assumption is we live in a mad world - In a MAD world you protect your population, NUTs protect military - If your enemy will have an invulnerable system by tomorrow what should you do? - Strike right now - Can you steal nuclear materials? Yes - - Are the planet's nuclear weapons secure? - Can you buy nuclear weapons on the dark web? You will get in trouble from authority - The more you spend on nuclear power, the less your spending on powerful forces - More likely for someone to attack you - Is the nuclear stockpile safe and reliable - Between 1950- 1980, between 45-60 serious accidents just in the US - Serious accident = when something blew up or fell out of plane - 128.