Lecture for 3/7 and 3/9
Lecture for 3/7 and 3/9 PSCI 2223
Popular in Introduction to International Relations
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Political Science
This 2 page Class Notes was uploaded by Caylin Enoch on Wednesday March 9, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSCI 2223 at University of Colorado at Boulder taught by Dr. Jaroslav Tir in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 42 views. For similar materials see Introduction to International Relations in Political Science at University of Colorado at Boulder.
Reviews for Lecture for 3/7 and 3/9
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 03/09/16
Lecture 3/7/16 and Lecture 3/9/16 Security • Realists: How do we keep ourselves safe in a world under constant threat of war? o Orthodox Realist View: peace through strength § Deter attacks, attack pre-emptively, be able to win wars ú Develop and possess as many weapons as possible ú May not be obvious, but we see this in the Republican Party’s tactics § Peace-through-strength problems: ú Expense: guns vs. butter (allocation of resources) ú Causes tension ú Temptation to use weapons ú Arms races o Deterrence (per Morgan) § Definition: Country A threatens to inflict intolerable damage on country B to prevent country B from attacking country A’s vital interest. § Manipulation via threat ú As opposed to the use of force • Threats: psychological dimension § If it works, it avoids the cost of fighting § What is needed for deterrence to work? ú Credibility • Can you carry out the threat? • Do you have the will to carry out the threat? ú Communication ú Threats must be communicated and received/believed § Some deterrence complications/problems ú Inherently reactive • No first-mover advantage -How do we know deterrence is working? • If no threat is ever made against you, is o A.) your deterrence is working or o B.) Something else is going on? • Need to prove why something did not happen o A logical nightmare, how can you explain something that didn’t happen? Lecture 3/7/16 and Lecture 3/9/16 o If something else is going on (b), are the weapons expenditure worth it? II. Mixed (Realist-Liberal) Alternatives • (3) arms control o Original idea: total disarmament § Realistic? ú Can use common things as weapons (e.g. OKC, WTC) o Modification: disarm to where you can still defend yourself § Qualitative disarmament ú Freezing weapon levels or ratio ú Problem: power fluctuates • Treaties would need to be flexible, but this would also make them unstable • (This increases uncertainty) § L (limit) vs. R (reduction)treaties ú SALT vs. START • Other example: conventional forces in Europe treaty, anti-ballistic missile treaty, non-proliferation treaty
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'