An Argument Against the Theory of Mutually Assured Destruction

        Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, is an argument that is used to explain why they has never been a nuclear war. This theory states that because nuclear weapons are so destructive, no rational leader will use them because of the consequences that will result in a nuclear ware of almost certain destruction to both sides. This is a result of many countries having second strike ability (the ability to launch an attack after already having been attacked), which means that a country launching a nuclear weapon would also likely be destroyed as well. However, despite the rationale behind the MAD theory, I will argue that there are many other explanations more effectively show why there has never been nuclear war.

        To begin, one must consider who in the world has nuclear weapons. The United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and Israel are the eight main holders of nuclear weapons. Looking at this list, most of these countries are democracies, if nothing else than in name (such as China and Russia). Therefore, one could contend that rather than MAD, one reason that there has never been a nuclear war is because only democracies have nuclear weapons. Thus, the lack of a nuclear war could be explained by the democratic peace theory, which states that democracies never fight each other.

        Another effective explanation of why there has never been a nuclear war aside from MAD is international institutions. The age of nuclear weapons has existed only since WWII, and this is a time period of large scale international cooperation through institutions such as the United Nations. I would argue that the reason that there has not been a nuclear war would be that there have been no large scale military conflicts in this period due to international intuitions that are present in this period. For example, the UN is an organization that helps facilitate cooperation and prevent wars through the collective security it creates among members. Additionally, the UN gives countries in conflict a chance to have their conflicts mediated in a neutral location which can help prevent wars. Considering nuclear weapons have only existed in this period, the prevention of a nuclear war could be attributed to international institutions in the post WWII period.

        Another issue with the MAD theory is that it counts on actors to be rational. This means that since a state that begins a nuclear conflict will also likely be destroyed as well, no rational actor will engage in nuclear warfare with a country with second strike capability. However, we cannot count on all actors who have access to nuclear weapons to be rational actors. For example, if North Korea gains access to nuclear weapons, we cannot assume they will not use them irrationally. We cannot count on them to be a rational actor, considering that we view a large portion of their actions dealing with other nations as irrational. For example, their hatred for South Korea could push them to act irrationally and engage in nuclear warfare.

        To conclude, I believe that there are many other explanations for why there has never been an all-out nuclear war aside from the theory of mutually assured destruction. However, all of the alternate explanations that I have cited still point to a nuclear war never happening, so I would conclude that regardless of what explanations or theories you believe in, it is hard to believe that a nuclear war will ever happen.

An Argument for the Embracing of Rising Powers

            The fear of opposing Great Powers seems to have dominated recent United States international politics. Whether it was the open opposition shown towards the Soviet Union and Communism during the Cold War, or the passive-aggressive relationship between the United States and China today, the United States has employed a foolish “us vs. them” policy throughout modern history regarding other Great Powers. Put simply, this “us vs. them” policy is outdated and harmful to the United States and humanity as a whole, and must be replaced with a more inclusive foreign policy agenda that promotes development in rising nations rather than stifles it.  

            To prove that the United States’ current hostility towards rising Great Powers is irrational and outdated, the concept of nationalism must first be addressed and discredited. First off, there was certainly a place for nationalism in the past. Nationalism, a sense of devotion to one’s nation, protected nation-states, and the political entities preceding nation states from being destroyed by a hostile world. If the English did not have a sense of loyalty and unity under their monarchy in the Middle Ages, the French, Norwegians, or any other one of the numerous hostile European powers would have quickly conquered them. The same can be said for almost all other nations and governments existing in the length of time between antiquity and the modern age. However, unlike in the past, humanity today has institutions, trade networks, and international relationships that prevent war and the outright destruction of people without the need for overt hostility between nations. Whether you believe in Democratic Peace Theory, Capitalist Peace Theory, or any one of the other numerous theories to explain the unprecedented period of peace in the Western World, there can be no denying the fact that war and outright destruction is an unfathomable concept for much of the developed world. The world today is globalized and national lines are blurring more and more, as people are allowed to connect with people around the world, buy products from around the world, and learn from around the world. The world seems to be moving towards peace and unity, making nationalistic and hostile policies towards other nations unnecessary and outdated.

            The world is more unified than it has even been before, not only united in a quest for peace and prosperity, but also ideologically. While ideas such as fascism, communism, imperialism, liberalism, and authoritarianism used to battle for global supremacy, liberal democracy has emerged as the dominant ideological form in the modern world. While in the past, ideology was tied to specific nations, and protected ferocity by that nation and its individual national; the triumph of the liberal democratic system has rendered this argument for continued existence of fervent nationalism obsolete. If the United States were to abandon hostile policies towards the Communist government of Cuba, it would not quickly fall under the banner of the hammer and sickle. In a world dominated by liberal democratic ideals, the assertion that nationalism and nationalistic policies towards other powers must be pursued to protect our superior ideology is ridiculous. Furthermore, in the past religion and state used to be tied together, and civilians believed it was important to protect the state religion. If one followed the state religion, then one owed a sense of loyalty to the state, and believed the state had to be protected and closed to outsiders. However, recent developments have reduced the need for a state fervently protecting a religion. Put quite simply, in the contemporary developed world most states are secular in nature and most of the world follows the dominant ideology of liberal democracy. There is some range to how liberal a country is, and the religious beliefs of different countries certainly differ, but regardless of these beliefs, most countries in the developed world relatively similar ideologies. Due to these similarities between nations, similar secular and ideological values, nationalism is not nearly as necessary as it was in the past.

            If nationalism and the fervent defense of national interest above all others is proven to be irrelevant, then this holds several implications for dealing with rising powers.  After all, if nations accept the idea that nationalism and loyalty to a single state and ideology are outdated, then there is little reason to oppose the rise of foreign power. The United States’ hostility to China, therefore, must be reexamined. After all, China follows a market economy, and has slowly been deregulating and conforming to the dominant western ideology, making it little threat ideologically. While China is by no means a democracy, it has not made significant efforts to dethrone the dominant ideology, nor could it stop the avalanche of liberalism if it tried. China is simply not a threat to the United States ideologically, nor is it a threat militarily, thanks to all of the previously mentioned theories of maintained peace between nations; therefore, China should not be treated hostilely. To the contrary, working with China, and furthering the growth of the billion-odd people who live in China would be a great benefit for the United States and humanity as a whole. By openly working with China, and encouraging growth, we could promote development and growth in both our economies. Additionally, put simply, many world problems, such as global warming, cannot be solved by single countries or countries bickering and arguing. To solve the true threats to our species, humanity needs to lay aside the old barriers of nations, and embrace brother and sister as we work for a better future.

            If humankind is able to lie down the artificial boundaries of state, religion, and ideology and promote the growth of rising states, humanity will improve at a whole. The United States, alongside the rest of the liberal Western world, has become a fantastic world power, driving forward technology, science, philosophy, and literature over the course of the last fifty years with only several hundred million people. Imagine what new heights humanity will be able to reach when the entire world is populated with scientists, doctors, philosophers; a world of seven billion progress drivers instead of only five hundred million. If the United States, and the other current Great Powers, lay aside the old prejudices and hostilities towards others, this dream can become a reality. If humankind can put down its artificial boundaries and unite as a species we can save our world from the true threats, global warming being chief among them, and join each other in the light of a better tomorrow.

An Argument against U.S. Intervention Abroad

            Over the past 60 years, the U.S. has certainly not been shy about intervening in weak or failed states. From Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq all the way to the current debate on whether to intervene in Syria, there are many examples of the U.S. taking action in these types of states. However, I will argue that the U.S. shouldn’t intervene in weak/failed states for any reason.

            To begin, weak and/or failed states are failed states for a reason: They likely have very unstable, weak, or corrupt governments. If the U.S. gets involved and attempts to remove a regime of a weak or failed state, it will then be responsible for creating a new government to take its place. As we saw in Iraq, this creates a very long process in which the U.S. is required to continue a military presence for years after the intervention should have been completed. This is a huge drain on U.S. resources. In addition, governments that the U.S. has put into place are unnatural and will struggle to stay effective once the U.S. leaves, because if democracy does not develop on its own then it will not likely be able to stay. As a result, the U.S. will he forced to stay involved with these military interventions for far longer than desirable.

            In addition to the struggles of U.S. intervention, there is also the issue that many interventions have ulterior motives. Regardless of arguments about weapons of mass destruction or, the U.S. went into almost certainly had some oil related motivation when intervening in Iraq. I’m not saying that the primary reason was necessarily oil, but it was definitely a factor and cannot be ignored. Had Iraq not been such a huge source of oil on which the U.S. was dependent, perhaps we would not have been so urgent to take military action there.

            Because of the difficulties associated with intervening in weak and failed states, I believe there is a better way to deal with these states outside of sending in military force. I believe the most effective way to help these states improve is to invest in them economically to allow them to develop on their own. Although we do not want to support regimes that we view as totalitarian or ones that violate human rights, in the long term by supporting these states economies, they will develop into stronger states, and as they stabilize, there will be a better framework for more stable governments to grow.

            If the U.S. continues to intervene militarily in weak or failed states to overthrow regimes we do not like, it will drain our resources and is not necessarily sustainable change. That is why I believe that we should instead help these failed states improve economically and stabilize. This idea may seem counter intuitive because we do not want to help states that we are not allies with, however I believe that over the long term this will be a more effective way of promoting democracy abroad, rather than expending resources to send the military in to failed states repeatedly.

World Peace

Andrew Simpson

GVPT200

What is world peace?

           World peace is a grand idea but I am not sure that it could be obtained in the way that we see it. It would be ideal to see nations come together as equals to solve the major problems that affect the world. It can be said that if we are able to come together as a whole we would have more power than if all the parts of the world remained separate. There is another idea that world peace could only be obtained in today’s society if an absolute or a group of absolute powers had control over the other nations. I believe that world peace as we see it is almost impossible to obtain; so we may have to change our perspective on world peace. 

            In today’s society there are a few established world powers. It can be said that most of these world powers will not be going anywhere anytime soon. In order for world peace to be established in a way that every one is an equal these world powers would have to give up or transfer their resources to other areas. I believe that it would be impossible to get any of the world powers to do this even if it was for the cause of world peace. It would be much more realistic for world peace to be a couple world powers controlling over certain areas.

            People could argue that if nations were able to come together for the cause of world peace then world powers would have no problems transferring resources. However, the way that the world works today is that a couple powers control most things that go on. In a very selfish way these powers mostly focus on bettering themselves and if they work with another nation its about what the world power can gain. If this is the mindset of today’s society I believe that world powers would immediately dismiss the idea of losing some of their power and control.

            I believe that maybe by adopting a view that if nations are able to work together in order to solve a world problem, then it could be seen as an aspect of world peace. This doesn’t mean that nations aren’t involved in conflicts but it means that they were able to put the conflicts aside and solve a main problem. Also, I feel like nations would be more willing to work together on their own terms rather than because an absolute power is forcing them too. The way that we see world peace is unobtainable in today’s society, however if we are able to change our perspective of world peace we could see aspects of it being applied.

            I stand behind the idea that as a whole we would be able to achieve a lot more than if we are divided. This being said if world peace was to be established in today’s world it could not work as a whole. It is clear that there would be a couple nations that would act as absolute powers over other groups. This being said, I am not sure if world peace could be maintained this way. With certain nations in charge and other nations under their control some sort of conflict would arise. I am not sure if world peace as we see it can ever be achieved; we may have to change our idea of world peace before we can obtain it.

Humanitarian Intervention: Why not Syria?

          Following the Cold War, the United States of America saw an increase in their economic prosperity and improvement in standards of living.  In light of its newfound state of global superiority, the U.S. attained a large degree of power in the international sphere.  Moreover, the jubilation ignited by the conclusion of the Cold War was short lived as it was overshadowed by the commencement of the Gulf War—the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq.  Subsequently, the United States demonstrated its position of military power by intervening in the Middle East.  With the assistance of fellow allies such as Great Britain, Italy, France, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, the United States was able to dismantle the invasion by the means of armored and airborne infantry potencies. After the success in Kuwait, the U.S. continued its acts of humanitarian intervention in Somalia; however, it did not yield the same results.  Furthermore, the backlash from the failed mission in Somalia, may explain the U.S. absence in Rwanda despite the immense humanitarian crises—the mass slaughter of Tutsi. Moreover, a similar pattern has emerged in sight of the crisis in Syria.  Like the failed success in Somalia, the intervention in Iraq did not go over smoothly ensuing intense criticism of US intervention in the Middle East. Thus, I believe there is reluctance on behalf of the United States to intervene in Syria resulting from the fear of a repeat of Iraq and the conflict of interests with fellow allies, such as Russia.

Currently, the United States has refused to intervene in the humanitarian crises happening in Syria.  According to “The Syria Strategy Vacuum” article in Foreign Policy magazine, Marc Lynch indicates, “many in Washington view this refusal to intervene in Syria, like a withdrawal from Iraq, as an abdication of leadership.”  However, as Lynch clarifies, “the United States can’t afford, and the public doesn’t want, another Iraq or Afghanistan—that’s why few openly recommend a full-scale U.S. intervention.”  Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush believed it in his prerogative to exercise the wrath of the world’s great power on the pretext of eliminating “weapons of mass destruction.”  Yet, it would later be determined by U.N. inspectors that such weaponry was nonexistent. Subsequently, political leaders were heavily “criticized as responsible for launching the war on false premises,” which resulted in atrocious cost of lives, anguish and depletion of resources.  Thus, an important lesson the U.S. acquired from the mistakes made in Iraq was that military intervention might mean severe limitations on what can be achieved.  It is easy for a great power, such as the U.S. to exert their military power, but once they execute a debilitating attack, it’s difficult to abdicate responsibility.  The United States, since Somalia and then Iraq have exercised caution in relation to their intervention, which can explain its reluctance to get involved with Syria.

In addition to the fear of an Iraq replication, the United States refusal to intervene in Syria can be attributed to the conflict of interest that may arise from fellow Security Council member—Russia.  Despite the growth of international disapproval, Russia has not ceased to express their support to President Bashar al-Assad.  One can assert that Russia’s backing is driven by its preservation of interest in Syria.  Currently, Syria has emerged as one of Russia’s active consumers of their weaponry.  Subsequently, Russia “has warned the US … against taking one-sided action against Syria.”  Moreover, Russia states that the Syrians themselves should deal with Syrian affairs, as they continue to supply them with artillery.

Essentially, the U.S. holds an unsteady position regarding humanitarian intervention in Syria.  Consequently, due to their past intervention experiences in the Middle East coupled with the UN Security Council member—Russia’s constant block of anti-Assad solutions, I believe that the United State will continue to abstain from its involvement in Syria.