ISSUE 5 Does the President Have Unilateral War Powers? I found this to be an interesting issue about the President having unilateral war powers. I can definitely see the “grey” area and reason for this issue to arise. As stated in the book, the confusion/conflict comes from the constitution and how it’s written. In summary, the Congress is given the power to declare war and “to raise and support armies”, but the president is authorized to serve as commander-in-chief of the armed forces “when called into actual service of the United States.” This means the President has the power to move troops where he deems fit regardless of congress.
While Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy all had the same same Cold War intention of ending communism, their ways of achieving their goal were different.The Cold War was an angry dispute between the United States and the Soviet Union about whether we should spread or contain communism (Ayres 817). According to Edward Ayres in American Anthem: Reconstruction to the Present all three Presidents used some form of Economic Aid, how we help other countries financially; Military Aid, how we help other countries’ militaries; and finally, Military Use, how we utilise our military (Ayres 817). Their end goal was to completely contain, or confine communism(Truman).
If this conflict ended up in war, it is the opinion of the author that the United States would have been to blame. The U.S. “Quarantine” was essentially a blockade and if the Russians were not in a good mood at the time then they could have taken it as an act of aggression and retaliated in kind. This would all equate to the U.S. inducing the apocalypse and therefore throw the United States against the world in an armed conflict to end the
Does the President have unilateral war powers? The age old question is does the president have unilateral war powers? John C.Yoo, a professor at University of California Berkeley argues that the language of the constitution sates that the in a crisis situation to have speedy action, the president has the power to declare war to ensure the safety of America. Michael Cairo, from "The 'Imperial Presidency' argues that the founders never wanted the president to have all power. They wanted to have distributed power throughout each branch.
Japan had made clear overtures to peace, but cultural differences made this nearly impossible (the shame of unconditional surrender goes against their code of honour). The determination to use an expensive bomb instead of letting it rust away; the desire to find out how devastating it was and the opportunity to use the bomb as a strong showcase of US supremacy, made Japan the ideal target. Obviously, the USSR would eventually succeed in creating the a-bomb. Therefore, making Hiroshima & Nagasaki the example of the tremendous power of the bombs would make it clear to the USSR that they too needed such weapons to defend themselves. Moreover, other countries claimed the right of nuclear weapons to defend their citizens.
He had blamed Iraq to be holding terrorists, he had made America believe that Iraq had been under Saddam Hussein’s clutches and that whatever he had to say was law. President Bush had stated in his speech that, “Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of terror of mass death and destruction, and he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them or provide them to a terror network”. He had made Americans believe that Hussein was creating weapons and developing a nuclear weapon so that he could “blackmail” the world. President Bush had not trusted Saddam Hussein and he didn’t want rest of America to either.
Kelly Shaver AMH 2030 Week 7 Individual Work What factors likely motivated President Truman to authorize the use of atomic bombs against Japan in August 1945? President Truman did not trust the Soviets. The Potsdam Declaration – July 26 listed U.S. policy also giving Japan a chance to surrender without guaranteeing that Emperor Hirohito would not be tried for war crimes committed by Japan. Japan was so cautious about their response that is was seen as a refusal on their part. The Japanese were seen as bloodthirsty savages willing to die rather than give up.
He also said that it will be impossible to persuade Russia to remove her troops from Poland and China and the island of Sakhalin unless they are shocked and impressed by American military strength. So in short words, James Byrnes believes that dropping the atomic bombs might make Russia more manageable and force Japan to surrender. If the USA did drop the bombs on japan, it will stop the USSR from advancing too far, plus halted the war quickly so that Stalin’s Soviet Russia did not demand joint occupation of
2) Berger argues that what happened on August 6, 1945 was "consciously and precisely planned". Highlight, underline, or flag the evidence he uses to support this claim. How does this argument support his larger purpose? Berger supports his claim by stating "The victims are chosen indiscriminately in the hope of producing a shock effect on political decision-making by their government" as well as "The two bombs dropped on Japan were terrorist actions. The calculation was terrorist.
The passengers on the ship knew there may be a possible attack on the ship but Woodrow Wilson condemned this attack as illegal and inhuman. After the ship sank, it sparked some outrage against the Germans causing hostile feelings on the country. (Faragher, Buhle, Czitrom, & Armitage, 2000) A coded message was created and sent by the German foreign secretary Arthur Zimmerman. This coded message would later on be called the Zimmerman telegraph and would be part of the reason that the United States was drawn into World War I. Zimmerman wanted to create an undercover alliance between Germany and Mexico. This secret