Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey

Contending Theories of International Relations: A Comprehensive Survey chapter 8
of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  Chapter 8Theories of Deterrence, Arms Control and Strategic Stability.Deterrence evolved historically in tandem with events of the cold war. (Discuss.  !uclear deterrence was at the heart of international strategic theory during Cold ar. Since then attention has focused upon conventional deterrence. This new focus includes weapons of mass destruction.The use of the term deterrence arose in the Cold ar. #rior to this $entham%s utilitarian notion of deterring actors via punishment for &misdeeds% was the closest historical e'uivalent to the concept. Deterrence theory accords well with realism. Consists of both &carrots% as well as &stics.% (Discuss. !uclear weapons led to need to prevent (deter wars as opposed to winning them. Deterrence evolved in stages (&waves% per )ervis. *+-+ containment was /S policy. 0n *++ the /SS1 e2ploded an atomic bomb. 0n *+-3 4orean ar broe out. !onnuclear, limited war strategy was emphasi5ed. Doctrine of nuclear sufficiency evolved under 6isenhower (*+-7*+*. Credibility of threat9counterthreat was crucial. Several a2ioms emerged:*!uclear weapons e2ist to prevent nuclear and ma)or conventional war.;They can%t prevent civil wars, guerrilla insurgencies and etc.7They re'uire constant, costly, technological innovation (discus.Deterrence is as much a psychological as it is a military concept.-To be effective deterrent capability can%t be ept secret.Deterrence and defense are distinct but closely related concepts (discuss./ltimate result was strategy of mutual assured destruction. Deterrence theory assumes that the parties to a conflict are fundamentally rational. A parado2 arises because actuallycarrying out a strategy of mutual assured destruction (<=AD> seems fundamentally irrational. Also: as military technology became more comple2 the uncertainties surrounding its usage rose rapidly. This had the effect of maing rational calculation ever harder. Some analysts such as ?ervis 'uestions deterrence%s central premise by asserting that decisionmaers were not necessarily rational. Also 'uestioned was the assumption that both sides saw the &game% e2actly the same way. #rocedural rationality (&normal% rationality versus instrumental rationality (&abnormal  but internally selfconsistent% rationality (@itler, $inaden compared and contrasted. (Discuss.Deterrence versus compellance (define.Controllability of nuclear (e.g. prospects for a &limited% nuclear war not spinning out of control. (Discuss. !uclear deterrence did not eliminate the need for a conventional defense as well.Beneral deterrence versus imminent deterrence (=organ. (Discuss  define. @uth  1usset used =organ%s definition of imminent deterrence (<>one side is at least  seriously considering an attac, while the other is mounting a threat of retaliation in order to prevent it.> They identified - such cases occurring between *+33 and *+83. 0n 7* (-EF of the cases, deterrence was found to have succeeded. Gther researchers cast doubts on these findings however. Disarmament , arms control, and deterrence (Discuss.#ostCold ar deterrence (Discus.Terrorism (Discuss at length. #er $etts <now less danger of complete annihilation but more danger of mass destruction.> Threats arise from:*!onstate affiliated (<independent> groups;1ouge state sponsored groups. !uclear weapons are seen as being liely to form central core of deterrence well into the ;* st  century. 6ffects of new technologiesH (Discuss.
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks