Blog #10: Threats

In my opinion, a threat is constituted as a harmful act that has the potential to create chaos and jeopardize a certain harmonious pattern of living. However, this definition could mean a multitude of different things to different nations, and certainly to different individuals. A global threat is much more general and inclusive than a national threat because just as nations have different opinions of what constitutes a threat, nations also have different priorities, strengths, and shortcomings. These could be anything from resources, to capabilities and depend on the economic and ethnic makeup of its citizens. Therefore, I believe the greatest threat to global peace and security is our lack of co-operation due to our lack of communication.

I think that our lack of communication is generally an umbrella for many other issues that could also threaten global order. For example, as states earlier, nations have varying capabilities and even certain advantages because of geographic location, and schools of thought. In an ideal world, we would utilize these abilities in order to solve climate, poverty, and resource-based problems or at least we could begin to try and solve these problems. Unfortunately, nations do not communicate effectively. Thus, if we were to collectively experience some sort of disaster, which required immediate action, we would lack an effective means of communication. Sure, each nation has its own procedures, but it is perplexing as to why we have never had a system inclusive of multiple nations I began to really think about this issue when Sarah brought up the possibility of having a “global phone tree.” I actually think this idea would be useful and effective. Although international organizations allow for global communication, it is not their primary goal. The lack of global communication is such a threat to the world because it could aid in virtually any specific type of crisis, and it is a vulnerable aspect of our global order.

The Casualties of Corruption

In the realm of world politics, a “threat” would be defined as something that holds the potential of causing damage to a society. The difficulty in addressing this arises in identifying what is considered “damage to a society.” This could range from physical damage, such as casualties, to ideological damage, where an idea suffers. The former is simple enough, but a specific example of ideological damage would be the stigma now attached to Islam, that all Muslims are violent extremists. This is damage because people associated with Islam (an idea, faith) now suffer from discrimination and prejudice. Therefore, a threat in world politics can be any number of things. Seeking to answer what the greatest threat to global peace and security would be is difficult. However, I would claim that to be corruption.

Corruption is what drives leaders to put their needs and wants in front of their state and their citizens. This causes the marginalized to be taken advantage of, the rich to abuse their power, and injustice to reign free. Corruption tends to create leadership resembling tyranny, the enemy of free markets, democracies, and individual rights. As liberalism dictates, the further we stray from these, the further we are from global peace and security. In Jack Snyder’s “One World, Rival Theories,” he notes that “the belief that democracies never fight wars against each other is the closest thing we have to an iron law in social science.” Therefore, corruption brings states away from true democracy, which makes peace and security more difficult to achieve. One can only hope to attain these goals if corruption in leadership is eliminated.

The most prominent example in the world today would be that of Afghanistan. Currently, the United States is fully invested in reducing corruption within the Afghani government so that American withdrawal can begin. Once corruption is eliminated in the country, it will become self-sustainable and will finally be able to prosper. Corruption is hindering Afghanistan from a state of prosperity, stability, and peace.

In 1999, BP participated in a conference on corruption, in which they outlined all the ways in which corruption erodes society. If you are interested, here is the link on what they said:
http://www.bp.com/genericarticle.do?categoryId=98&contentId=2000415

Back To Your Regularly Scheduled WP Blog

The largest problem in world politics for the WORLD - and, thanks to our entangling alliances, the US - is nuclear arms and what to do with them. Now, most familiar with this space are also familiar with the dangers of nukes in the hands of North Korea and Iran. Obviously, efforts must be made multilaterally and urgently to stop events of that respect from transpiring; these things are paramount to securing the security of our near future. However, nuclear arms are dangerous no matter where they are housed, or who houses them; and regardless of what future weapons may come, the ones we have now are a big enough threat.

There are several reasons for this. First, the New START drops the level of active missiles for both the USA and Russia to 1,550. This is a large reduction from the original START; however, this number is still much larger than is necessary to prevent an attack from another nuclear country. If the level of deterrence is defined as "enough weapons to survive a first strike by another power, and still be able to counter effectively" - and if "effectively" can be reduced to a matter of 5-10 cities razed, not the pulverization of an entire country into a modern-day salt-sowed Carthage - can we not dig deeper into the nuclear stockpiles of both countries? We can certainly go under a thousand - perhaps (probably?) more than that.

Why do we have to worry so much about nuclear weapons if the United States has them, though - by far the most in the world? The biggest reason is not fear of attack but fear of accident and error. For example, most of our nukes are under a "launch on warning" system, where a huge amount of missiles can be launched at a moment's notice. What if this came on account of a false report? A radar blip or computer error? Why are our nuclear systems launch readiness still stuck in the 50s? And what about the threat of terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear weapon by stealing it? Less nukes would mean less of a likelyhood for this to happen.

Most of all, though, the United States should be worried about Israel. We are very closely allied to this very aggressive nation, and an avid reader of this blog already knows all about my views on the subject of Israel and nuclear weapons. It is not necessary to restate it here, except to reiterate that it is quite within the realm of possibility that Israel will use a "launch on warning" quick-strike nuclear attack on PURPOSE, to quickly devastate an (even if only perceived) attacker, and that this would only draw the United States in. Far worse, Israel is limited by no START treaty.

One modern nuclear weapon can unleash more destructive power than any other force on earth. With the sheer numerical amounts that are at the disposal of man today, a war or even an accident could cause irreversible tragedy for not just any one nation, but potentially a huge swath of the world. Reigning in these weapons - with the aim of eventually reducing to zero - is the biggest step we can take to providing for a future where, at the very least, one's world will not become vaporized overnight.

Rational Debt Analysis

            The most obvious and rational threat to the national security of the United States is the federal debt of the American government. Due to the ever growing federal infrastructure and the vastly unnecessary amount of publically-owned services, greater and greater amounts of national tax revenues have been spent annually. Since the Second World War, the United States has been actively pursuing a government deficit of irrational proportions. Unless action is taken within the next two decades, public debt will be at a level at which no “next generation” will able to conceivably pay off.

Seeing the rationale and logic behind this argument, and the clear backing of common empirical data, federal debt is clearly the prime national security threat to the United States. If the government bureaucracy does not take action against this Frankenstein of poor financial planning, the United States will lose its great ideological war against irrationality. With this crushing defeat of the American people will come the death of freedom, and the closure of the modern era. The vanquishing of modernity is a defeat for social progression in regards to human welfare. This course of mankind is a blatant path leading to human social destruction.

Nothing to be Worried About

In World Politics this week we discussed the national security strategies of the 1950s compared to that of 2010. The major differences between the two documents demonstrate both how far we’ve come, but also how the issues we are faced with have become more threatening.

At the beginning of the Cold War, the United States’ strategy focused on Soviet Union containment, whereas we are now focused on the fight against “violent extremism.” Although both issues are fighting ideologies in some ways, communism and anti-American sentiments, the difference of who is creating the threat poses a larger risk to national security. In 1950, we were fighting against a state. This is a situation we have faced before, state-to-state combat. Even though the circumstances of why the United States was fighting differed from past wars, it was generally the same idea. However with the growth of terrorism, the United States is facing a threat posed by non-state actors, people that are difficult to trace, contact, and negotiate with. We have entered a completely new arena of world politics.

Although the 2010 document portrays all that the United States has accomplished over time, it also shows how dire our situation is, especially in comparison to 1950. Nuclear warfare is still an issue, except this time it is even more difficult to discover where they might be coming from. All this is hidden in Obama’s optimistic and hopeful language, which does an excellent job of reducing fear of the threat that we face with terrorists. It seems as if we have nothing to worry about. I’m not sure if I appreciate that or not, Obama.

Reflection #9: To Each, His Own

World Politics this week was much more active and opinionated than usual because we got to talk about our first major topic that applied to our current situation. In my opinion, the most educational, and genuinely interesting aspect of national security was comparing the NSE-68 document from the cold war era, and Obama’s national security policy. To me, the differences seem far more extensive than just the transition from emphasis on the use of hard power to soft power as a means of protecting our people and ideals. It is also a clear representation of the progression of priorities and even social norms to the American people as a whole.

The NSE-68 document supported the idea of defeating the enemy through our most effective means; this is a reflection of the paranoia that was emphasized by the media mostly, but still remained a concern in the average American household. Although part of the strategy was to maintain ties with our allies, these nations were in fact extremely similar to our own. The “us” was more exclusive, and the “them” was more specific. Contrastingly, Obama’s strategy addresses our need to build our image as a more co-operative nation, while still influencing others to understand why they too would benefit from our democratic system.The emergence of political correctness affects the values and therefore the priorities of American society today. The average American child is taught to value equality, while paranoia towards “them” is often exploited by the media and criticized by the average citizen. Today, our concerns are more collective, but at a hegemonic level. Obama says in the current document that “We want a better future for our children and grandchildren, and we believe that their lives will be better if other peoples’ children and grandchildren can live in freedom and prosperity.” This is represented through society by the encouragement, and rewarding of those who act as the “bigger person,” and set an example in the hope that others will follow.

While paranoia absolutely still exists, it is renamed “Islamaphobia,” and it is considered more socially unacceptable to call someone a terrorist than it would have been to call someone a communist. Obama emphasizes that we should instead, step back and consider the future of our citizens and ask, “Is there a better way to solve this problem, and also benefit the world as a whole.”

Ultimately, the goal of being permanently “secure” is obscure and ever changing, as observed through these documents. While American national security has always been centered around protection of our people, ideals, and the maintenance of hegemonic influence, the means by which we go bout achieving this security is constantly being explored and in some ways this change in inevitable because global society is also constantly changing. Technology, and the average person’s ability to communicate with such a vast array of global society have caused our methods to also change. Having deadly weapons, while necessary, does not simply solve the problem anymore, and chances are, we will have to change these methods again as the world continues to progress.

Warning: This Post Has Nothing To Do With WP

The Scene: TJM paces in his cramped dorm room, hands clenched tightly around his head. An agonized look on his face, he gracefully trips over a flipflop on the floor, deftly manages to avoid falling into a desk corner, and ends up on his knees. Woe is unto him. He cries into the darkness:

TJM: Somebody! Football God from up above! I need help and I need it now! I beseech you, send me your most sagacious messenger to show me the way!

Wind weakly rushes through the room; a somewhat-intimidating burst of smoke and light occurs. Eli Manning, quarterback for the New York Giants, appears. His trademark deer-in-the-headlights look is exaggerated by the multi-watt halo he wears, which makes him squint something fierce; without the shoulder pads, he appears to be similar in stature to my 16 year old brother. Eli idly scratches his head, waiting for TJM to make the first move.

TJM: You...you're the Football God's most sagacious messenger? I mean, you're my favorite player and all, but -

EM: Yeah, yeah, you were expecting Peyton, right? Freaking Peyton. Well, Peyton's the usual liaison, but he's busy making another commercial right now, so I'm his stand in. As a Giants fan, I would think that you'd be excited about this any - hey, stop laughing!

TJM: Well, you do look ridiculous,

EM: (Fidgeting awkwardly with halo)...fair enough.

TJM: Anyway, the question I have been fighting with is this: I've been a Giants fan my whole life. I've supported you guys through the thick and thin, through all the dropped passes on poorly thrown balls and all the bad sacks you've taken -

EM: Clears throat

TJM: Through all the terrible interceptions, and how you turned us into a losing team in 2004, and -

EM: All RIGHT! All RIGHT!

TJM: - But now, I'm playing fantasy football. And now, I'm drafting people like DeSean Jackson on the Eagles, and now I'm paying very close attention to the scores and stats of other games than Giants games. Frankly, it's making me very uncomfortable with my fandom. What can I do? Should I stop playing fantasy football?

EM: Well, TJM, let me ask you something. Who do you think is the starting quarterback for MY fantasy football team?

TJM: Well, you, probably.

EM: Wrong! It's Peyton! And my backup is Phil Rivers - and I hate that guy. The point is, you don't draft people who you like, or who you hope do well. You draft people based on who's best. And that's how you should do everything in life - by being competitive, and being fair. Let me ask you, how are you doing in your league?

TJM: I'm in first place by a wide margin.

EM: And how does that make you feel?

TJM: Well...good, actually. Like a world beater

EM: Exactly! Life is about winning, not being a nice guy to EVERYONE. If I cared about making everyone think I was a team player, I wouldn't have forced a trade from the Chargers to the Giants. Now instead of being 2-5 in San Diego, I've won a Super Bowl in New York -

TJM: New Jersey.

EM: Whatever - and I'm having fun. Just remember that it's best to worry more about enemies than friends - and that means worrying more about your rivals on your Fantasy league than worrying about us Giants. We'll be fine. And besides, if you spend a little energy in your dorm room rooting for a player for the Patriots or Cowboys instead of us, we'll forgive you. After all, you know when you yell and scream at the TV to run faster or tackle him already or for God's sake Eli stop throwing to ball to the wrong jerseys? Yeah, we can't actually hear you.

TJM: (Horrified) NO!!

EM: YES!! If you really need to talk to us, you can write us a letter, and there's a very very small probability I or somebody associated with the Giants will read it. But I wouldn't count on it. Gets up, stretches. Well, I hope we've learned some valuable lessons about realism today. I should be on my way, and good luck with your Fantasy team.

TJM: Wait! One last question. How's YOUR team doing in the family league?

EM: (...) Don't want to talk about it.

Silence

EM: (Brightly) But at least I'm beating the guy who drafted me!

Silence

EM: I'm gonna go.

Flourish; Exeunt