Welcome to POSC240-012!
This is where you will be posting 10 blogs throughout the semester; 4 blogs in September, 3 in October, & 3 in November. Your entries should tackle current events, reactions to lectures and readings, & comments & questions about the class.
Make sure you write substantial and thought-provoking entries & write your full name at the end of each post!
Start blogging!
Nick & Sara
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
Security Dilemmas
The security dilemma is a recurrent topic in IR. The readings and class lectures , as well as current events, will hint to many instances where security dilemmas occur. Post your thoughts on when you think they do!
20 comments:
Anonymous
said...
I came across an example of security dilemma in The Origins of the Modern World while reading this weekend in a section about trade in the Indian Ocean. It was stressed how important the Indian Ocean was to global trading giving access to both wealth and luxuries such as spices and manufactured goods. From 650 to 1500 trade was self-regulated in this area with no single dominating power nor need for force of arms. However, and relating to Friday’s discussion, from 1500 to 1750 the Portuguese, followed by the Dutch, English, and French brought about armed trading to the Indian Ocean. This made other neighboring traders insecure forcing them to arm themselves in defense. See Chapter 2 page 50.
I guess I should have posted my reaction over here, instead. Good job Francesca in finding empirical examples of theoretical ideas from class. That, truly, is the point of this class.
A major security dilemma going on right now is that not only illegal immigrants are crossing the border but so are terrorists. Terrorists hide themselves within all of the immigrants and make their way across the Mexican border and into the United States. "Now the Feds fear that terrorists would smuggle nuclear and other types of weapon across our open borders(wake up america)." What are we going to do about it? Bush's plan- "is asking for volunteers among its agents to help build fences on the U.S.-Mexico border, even as President Bush is withdrawing half the National Guard troops he sent there last year to build fences(Wake up america)." For more information on this you can go to http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/08/illegal-immigration-border-patrol.html
This is not a security dilemma. A security dilemma is a term used in international relations theory that describes a tough choice faced by states. A "dilemma" is essentially when you have two choices, or options, both of which are not optimal. Do I cut my cancer infected hand off, or let the cancer spread to the rest of my body? That is a dilemma.
The dilemma faced by states is to either choose not to arm themselves, which would have the consequence of making them insecure to potential attacks. However, if they choose to arm themselves, they make their neighbors feel insecure and compel them to arms themselves as well. This creates the scenario in which arms races occur.
So, you either choose not to arm yourself. In which case you have increased your insecurity to potential attacks. Or, you choose to arm yourself. In which case you contribute to making a more dangerous and hostile political environment.
All that you have really said is that terrorists are potentially crossing the border.
With the advance in technology and the mistrusts of one another nations feel threatened when one contains such strength. It's all coming from fear. Technological advances make it possible to cause mass destruction, much larger than those in the 650 to 1500. There is just no loyalty in trade when working together. Terrorists being able to be in such a remote area cause a disturbance in trade for everyone. It is not a dilemma because you don't have a choice. In these situations it's protect yourself, or others will come after you in a power hungry world.
The issue on our nation's security,I think, is a noteworthy one. To stray away from the 9/11 and terrorist issue, I wanted to focus on the illegal immigrant issue. I recently was reading in my POSC 150 textbook that immigrants are taking up so much of our population that the goverment is actually favoring their opinions because they are coming to them in giant numbers. So what do we do? Illegal immigrants are working in our country, not paying taxes, and quite possibly bringing diseases into our country. The government needs to put more troops at our borders instead of in Iraq. Not only would this provide better security for out country, but it would also preserve the lives of out soldiers.
Security dilemmas are quite an essential part of how each country goes about daily business and actions with one another. These various security threats are one of the prime examples of how our world system (the various entities)are affected by the actions of others. For example, the United States feels that certain communist countries like North Korea and Iran possessing or making nuclear weapons is a direct threat to us. In response to this security "dilemma" we take certain precautions as a country. The war we have started in Iraq could also potentially pose as a security threat. The more we meddle in the Middle East and getting involved in affairs over there, the more these terrorist groups resent everything that we stand for. This could potentially lead to more attacks or attempted strikes to our countries or our interests worldwide. The entire world is at a constant security dilemma with the threat of nuclear weapons that could be launched at any time. If any one country says the wrong thing to trigger hostilities, there could possibly be a security issue for the entire world, let alone the United States.
I can't agree with Mike's previous statement more. It seems as if it's the United States' responsibility (along with other global powers i.e. Britain) to evaluate the actions of other nations around the world and take the necessary actions or precautions against them. The United States is sort of a "big brother" if you will to the rest of the world because of our strength. This is what causes so many other countries to resent the US (North Korea, the Muslim Countries) and to bring terror to the states. Many of these countries are bothered by the fact that it seems no one can fully regulate the US and what we do inside our own borders because we are a world power.
I think that when we try to be the police of the world, we put ourselves and other countries in danger. Smaller countries are stuck with the dilemma of whether to research and build a powerful military or depend on world powers to come to their aid in a time of trouble. If these countries don't decide to arm themselves and find ways to keep their countries safe, then there will undeniably come a time when one of the super powers simply doesn't come to their aid when they need them. However, if these smaller countries do decide to arm themselves then the super powers may see this as an act of aggression. Further more, if the super powers see this as an act of aggression they may decide to not protect them in a time when the smaller countries need them the most.
I see security dilemmas as a contributor to a system of what I like to think of as “checks and balances” applied to international politics. In an international system, each country must take into account the actions of other countries as well as their possible reactions to other stimuli before deciding on a course of action. In this way, leaders almost make pros and cons lists relating to the repercussions of their potential action. The pros would be the expected advantages, with the cons being undesirable reactions from other states. If the cons outweigh the pros, then the leader must find a more desirable solution. In this way, this is almost a built-in system of checks and balances, because the actions of one country may be checked by the reactions (and the consequences brought about as a result) of others. Security dilemmas play into this because they (in a way) contribute to the system; a country may decide (not) to pursue weapons research, knowing the potential reactions from the international community. The country’s sovereignty in its own affairs and power in the international system is checked because that same country may decide that the consequences from the international community (as a result of its planned course of action) would be too detrimental to its own well-being to pursue that course.
I think that security dilemmas directly tie into globalization. The idea that "we have to be bigger, better, stronger, faster (whatever-er) than the other guys" has been going around throughout history. Just because in this case it's applied to a very specific thing - arming ourselves better than the other guys - doesn't mean that it's not the same basic idea circulating yet again through our societies.
One security dilemma that I think were in right now is whether or not to over ride certain civil rights when terrorists are envolved. Mainly our right to privacy because after 9/11 we found out that many of the terrorist were hard working citizens that had an motive that we found out of on 9/11. The issue our Govt is facing is whether or not to spi on citizens they think our terrorist or maybe helping terrorist in some kind of way. It’s pretty clear this goes against the law and not to mention many ethical issues it violates but at the end of the day will it prevent a nuclear explosion on our soil or some other devastating attack against us. To me I will give up privacy in exchange for security even if it means every phone I make gets record and listen to by somebody I don't know.
To go back to what both Mike Pozansky and Ryan Adam posted about security threats and America’s role as a controlling force, I just can’t agree with their point of view. Both of you are on the same page in saying that America does have the power to control countries they don’t find suitable to house nuclear weapons, but that brings up an interesting question… Why America? Who are we to decide which country is suitable and which country isn’t. Yes, we can be looked at as the world’s “big brother” but as Ryan pointed out it is “because of our strength” and as he also pointed out, other countries appear to be “terrorists” is our eyes merely because they don’t see things from our point of view. If the table’s were turned, and North Korea had the power to tell us we couldn’t have a nuclear program we would be looked at as terrorists by just arguing the point.
The United States has to act as the world police. What other country is fit to take this position besides America? Look what happened during the Cold War when their were two world powers. To avoid another massive security dilemma, their has to be one sort of accepted world superpower.
This of course will anger many countries (mostly dictatorships/non-democracies) but it has to be done. We supply many countries with food and economic aid (even the countries we deemed to be in the "axis of evil"). If we ever willingly step down as the world superpower, we will obviously be replaced - which I hope everyone agrees would be pretty scary. Imagine China taking our place, and all the humanitarian issues that would ensue.
While it is nice to think that the world doesn't need any especially strong country to watch over the rest of the world, it is unrealistic. There will always be a country that is stronger than the rest, and I personally don't mind that being the USA.
I think that every person, every country is watched by another. If we aren't the "big brother" then who do we choose to be? I don't think America is always choosing to be big brother so we can enforce our power. Although many people don't want to realize it, sometimes the United States does thing for the good of the people. The Patriot Act is always in question when we talk about security dilemmas. I think as citizens should watch out government and be well informed so we don't get "abused" in a way. At the same time, in my opinion, I do not think our government is infringing on our civil rights to an extreme extent. I think it is just important as citizens to stay well informed so we don't let things like this happen.
I think the Ahmadinejad's recent visits to Southern America present an interesting security delema to the United States. As a potential future enemy and a state that has never been overly friendly towards the US this gesture must be viewed carefully. Most of the places he visited are anti-US in nature. The true question whether this is a hostile gesture or just an example of "Logic of Balancing". He might be allying these countries simply because the US has moved into his "neighborhood" as it were. Also he could just be trying to build a base of support globably as he attempts to advance his nation. However it is going to be difficult to find the true reasoning behind his actions. The US needs to find out the true motivations of the South American countries.
I agree that the US needs to find out what his true motivations are. I think a lot of Americans stopped trusting the government after hearing different theories on our reasons for going to war in Iraq. I think if we were to take an offensive toward other countries that pose as "threats" it will take a lot of convincing. Security is a major priority and decision maker for most Americans in the last election and the upcoming election. The candidate that can convince the public that we as a country are secure in the world will rule. I think Americans are sick of living with the thought of fear in the back of their minds. The public is looking for military security as well as economic security. Until they are more educated in both areas, we can be sure that these goals will be met.
In response to the previous postings about the issue of illegal immigrants and the belief that our government needs to put more troops at the borders: Our economy is largely dependant on the jobs taken by illegal immigrants and their presence in the work force. The country needs people like these immigrants to successfully function each and every day...rather than attempting to push them away from the country we should instead accept them and control their increasing numbers through legislation and not force
20 comments:
I came across an example of security dilemma in The Origins of the Modern World while reading this weekend in a section about trade in the Indian Ocean. It was stressed how important the Indian Ocean was to global trading giving access to both wealth and luxuries such as spices and manufactured goods. From 650 to 1500 trade was self-regulated in this area with no single dominating power nor need for force of arms. However, and relating to Friday’s discussion, from 1500 to 1750 the Portuguese, followed by the Dutch, English, and French brought about armed trading to the Indian Ocean. This made other neighboring traders insecure forcing them to arm themselves in defense. See Chapter 2 page 50.
Francesca Carregal
I guess I should have posted my reaction over here, instead. Good job Francesca in finding empirical examples of theoretical ideas from class. That, truly, is the point of this class.
Nick Galasso
A major security dilemma going on right now is that not only illegal immigrants are crossing the border but so are terrorists. Terrorists hide themselves within all of the immigrants and make their way across the Mexican border and into the United States. "Now the Feds fear that terrorists would smuggle nuclear and other types of weapon across our open borders(wake up america)." What are we going to do about it? Bush's plan- "is asking for volunteers among its agents to help build fences on the U.S.-Mexico border, even as President Bush is withdrawing half the National Guard troops he sent there last year to build fences(Wake up america)."
For more information on this you can go to http://wwwwakeupamericans-spree.blogspot.com/2007/08/illegal-immigration-border-patrol.html
Kristin Iorii
This is not a security dilemma. A security dilemma is a term used in international relations theory that describes a tough choice faced by states. A "dilemma" is essentially when you have two choices, or options, both of which are not optimal. Do I cut my cancer infected hand off, or let the cancer spread to the rest of my body? That is a dilemma.
The dilemma faced by states is to either choose not to arm themselves, which would have the consequence of making them insecure to potential attacks. However, if they choose to arm themselves, they make their neighbors feel insecure and compel them to arms themselves as well. This creates the scenario in which arms races occur.
So, you either choose not to arm yourself. In which case you have increased your insecurity to potential attacks. Or, you choose to arm yourself. In which case you contribute to making a more dangerous and hostile political environment.
All that you have really said is that terrorists are potentially crossing the border.
With the advance in technology and the mistrusts of one another nations feel threatened when one contains such strength. It's all coming from fear. Technological advances make it possible to cause mass destruction, much larger than those in the 650 to 1500. There is just no loyalty in trade when working together. Terrorists being able to be in such a remote area cause a disturbance in trade for everyone. It is not a dilemma because you don't have a choice. In these situations it's protect yourself, or others will come after you in a power hungry world.
The issue on our nation's security,I think, is a noteworthy one. To stray away from the 9/11 and terrorist issue, I wanted to focus on the illegal immigrant issue. I recently was reading in my POSC 150 textbook that immigrants are taking up so much of our population that the goverment is actually favoring their opinions because they are coming to them in giant numbers. So what do we do? Illegal immigrants are working in our country, not paying taxes, and quite possibly bringing diseases into our country. The government needs to put more troops at our borders instead of in Iraq. Not only would this provide better security for out country, but it would also preserve the lives of out soldiers.
Security dilemmas are quite an essential part of how each country goes about daily business and actions with one another. These various security threats are one of the prime examples of how our world system (the various entities)are affected by the actions of others. For example, the United States feels that certain communist countries like North Korea and Iran possessing or making nuclear weapons is a direct threat to us. In response to this security "dilemma" we take certain precautions as a country. The war we have started in Iraq could also potentially pose as a security threat. The more we meddle in the Middle East and getting involved in affairs over there, the more these terrorist groups resent everything that we stand for. This could potentially lead to more attacks or attempted strikes to our countries or our interests worldwide. The entire world is at a constant security dilemma with the threat of nuclear weapons that could be launched at any time. If any one country says the wrong thing to trigger hostilities, there could possibly be a security issue for the entire world, let alone the United States.
Mike Poznansky
I can't agree with Mike's previous statement more. It seems as if it's the United States' responsibility (along with other global powers i.e. Britain) to evaluate the actions of other nations around the world and take the necessary actions or precautions against them. The United States is sort of a "big brother" if you will to the rest of the world because of our strength. This is what causes so many other countries to resent the US (North Korea, the Muslim Countries) and to bring terror to the states. Many of these countries are bothered by the fact that it seems no one can fully regulate the US and what we do inside our own borders because we are a world power.
-Ryan Adam-
I think that when we try to be the police of the world, we put ourselves and other countries in danger. Smaller countries are stuck with the dilemma of whether to research and build a powerful military or depend on world powers to come to their aid in a time of trouble. If these countries don't decide to arm themselves and find ways to keep their countries safe, then there will undeniably come a time when one of the super powers simply doesn't come to their aid when they need them. However, if these smaller countries do decide to arm themselves then the super powers may see this as an act of aggression. Further more, if the super powers see this as an act of aggression they may decide to not protect them in a time when the smaller countries need them the most.
-Ryan Pierce
I see security dilemmas as a contributor to a system of what I like to think of as “checks and balances” applied to international politics. In an international system, each country must take into account the actions of other countries as well as their possible reactions to other stimuli before deciding on a course of action. In this way, leaders almost make pros and cons lists relating to the repercussions of their potential action. The pros would be the expected advantages, with the cons being undesirable reactions from other states. If the cons outweigh the pros, then the leader must find a more desirable solution. In this way, this is almost a built-in system of checks and balances, because the actions of one country may be checked by the reactions (and the consequences brought about as a result) of others. Security dilemmas play into this because they (in a way) contribute to the system; a country may decide (not) to pursue weapons research, knowing the potential reactions from the international community. The country’s sovereignty in its own affairs and power in the international system is checked because that same country may decide that the consequences from the international community (as a result of its planned course of action) would be too detrimental to its own well-being to pursue that course.
C. Faith Woodworth
I think that security dilemmas directly tie into globalization. The idea that "we have to be bigger, better, stronger, faster (whatever-er) than the other guys" has been going around throughout history. Just because in this case it's applied to a very specific thing - arming ourselves better than the other guys - doesn't mean that it's not the same basic idea circulating yet again through our societies.
One security dilemma that I think were in right now is whether or not to over ride certain civil rights when terrorists are envolved. Mainly our right to privacy because after 9/11 we found out that many of the terrorist were hard working citizens that had an motive that we found out of on 9/11. The issue our Govt is facing is whether or not to spi on citizens they think our terrorist or maybe helping terrorist in some kind of way. It’s pretty clear this goes against the law and not to mention many ethical issues it violates but at the end of the day will it prevent a nuclear explosion on our soil or some other devastating attack against us. To me I will give up privacy in exchange for security even if it means every phone I make gets record and listen to by somebody I don't know.
Gregory Alen Ward Jr.
To go back to what both Mike Pozansky and Ryan Adam posted about security threats and America’s role as a controlling force, I just can’t agree with their point of view. Both of you are on the same page in saying that America does have the power to control countries they don’t find suitable to house nuclear weapons, but that brings up an interesting question… Why America? Who are we to decide which country is suitable and which country isn’t. Yes, we can be looked at as the world’s “big brother” but as Ryan pointed out it is “because of our strength” and as he also pointed out, other countries appear to be “terrorists” is our eyes merely because they don’t see things from our point of view. If the table’s were turned, and North Korea had the power to tell us we couldn’t have a nuclear program we would be looked at as terrorists by just arguing the point.
-John Georges
In response to John's post:
The United States has to act as the world police. What other country is fit to take this position besides America? Look what happened during the Cold War when their were two world powers. To avoid another massive security dilemma, their has to be one sort of accepted world superpower.
This of course will anger many countries (mostly dictatorships/non-democracies) but it has to be done. We supply many countries with food and economic aid (even the countries we deemed to be in the "axis of evil"). If we ever willingly step down as the world superpower, we will obviously be replaced - which I hope everyone agrees would be pretty scary. Imagine China taking our place, and all the humanitarian issues that would ensue.
While it is nice to think that the world doesn't need any especially strong country to watch over the rest of the world, it is unrealistic. There will always be a country that is stronger than the rest, and I personally don't mind that being the USA.
-Gabe DiPietro
I think that every person, every country is watched by another. If we aren't the "big brother" then who do we choose to be? I don't think America is always choosing to be big brother so we can enforce our power. Although many people don't want to realize it, sometimes the United States does thing for the good of the people.
The Patriot Act is always in question when we talk about security dilemmas. I think as citizens should watch out government and be well informed so we don't get "abused" in a way. At the same time, in my opinion, I do not think our government is infringing on our civil rights to an extreme extent. I think it is just important as citizens to stay well informed so we don't let things like this happen.
-Kimberly Renner
I think the Ahmadinejad's recent visits to Southern America present an interesting security delema to the United States. As a potential future enemy and a state that has never been overly friendly towards the US this gesture must be viewed carefully. Most of the places he visited are anti-US in nature. The true question whether this is a hostile gesture or just an example of "Logic of Balancing". He might be allying these countries simply because the US has moved into his "neighborhood" as it were. Also he could just be trying to build a base of support globably as he attempts to advance his nation. However it is going to be difficult to find the true reasoning behind his actions.
The US needs to find out the true motivations of the South American countries.
~Kevin Wright
I agree that the US needs to find out what his true motivations are. I think a lot of Americans stopped trusting the government after hearing different theories on our reasons for going to war in Iraq. I think if we were to take an offensive toward other countries that pose as "threats" it will take a lot of convincing. Security is a major priority and decision maker for most Americans in the last election and the upcoming election. The candidate that can convince the public that we as a country are secure in the world will rule. I think Americans are sick of living with the thought of fear in the back of their minds. The public is looking for military security as well as economic security. Until they are more educated in both areas, we can be sure that these goals will be met.
Sorry, that last comment was by Kris-Ann Panzella
In response to the previous postings about the issue of illegal immigrants and the belief that our government needs to put more troops at the borders:
Our economy is largely dependant on the jobs taken by illegal immigrants and their presence in the work force. The country needs people like these immigrants to successfully function each and every day...rather than attempting to push them away from the country we should instead accept them and control their increasing numbers through legislation and not force
Kevin Moreno
Good post.
Post a Comment