Glaser refers to the concept of the security dilemma – “a situation in which one state’s efforts to increase its own security reduce the security of others” (2011, 82). He makes the point that China’s conventional military strength being less than that of the United States, combined with the geographical barrier of the Pacific Ocean means that an attack on America is so unlikely it effectively poses no threat, and despite possessing the smaller force, the same obstacle of the Pacific Ocean mean China can feel confident enough in its own defence
US wanted to focus on itself and the problems they faced within the country, never mind foreign problems. It would be a citizens surprise that the United States became a world superpower at one point and was becoming involved much more in global events and issues. Some believe that the United States shifted from isolationism to being involved in war for self-defense reasons while other say its a combination of economic reasons and self-defense. It began due to the bombing of Pearl Harbor and ever since then the US has not been for isolationism. The country then feared the spread of communism which lead into more global involvement.
The surface frames in this phrase are the mental structures normally associated with the words ‘war’ and ‘terror’. We know that a war is a series of battles between two armies, that our side is assumed to be good, and that the battles are necessary to win some kind of moral crusade. The frame associated with the word ‘terro’r is that it is an extreme form of fear, it is experienced by a person who feels threatened, and that it is an emotion.When we put these words together we get the metaphor “Terror is our enemy.” This happens because we wage war on an enemy who threatens us in a way that mandates military action. The phrase ‘War on X” tells us that X is our enemy that we must
Rational choice is the theory that decison makers choose on the basis of what is best for themselves and their states. Nationalism is the mind set gloryfing a particular state and the nationality group living in the state which beleives the state interest is the supreme value. Realism is the thought that interstate competition is natural and all states should prepeare to go to war and compete to avoid it. Irredentism refers to the movement of an ethnic national group to regain controll of lost territory by force. Facism which is the promotion of extreme nationalism and establishment of and authoriatarian society built around a signle party with dictatorial leadership.
Though this proposition is correct, I argue that the decentralization of the Chinese system of governance was an integral reason for its inability to cope with the challenges posed by modern nation-states. This decentralization is characterized by many factors including internal social unrest, lack of strong leadership, corruption, and traditional ideals. The already decentralized, corrupt state was thus easily exploited by modern imperialist powers due to their superior military technology and organization. Eventually, China’s decline and successive defeats led to the fall of the last Chinese empirical dynasty. To begin, it is necessary to have a strong understanding of China’s background as an empire and what led to its decline during this period.
Since the basic of all human nature is to obtain power, we can assume that there is something that the US wants besides trying to stop the use of chemical weapons. With the past conflicts that we have had in the middle east, why do we need to try and topple a government or be the police for the area and try to neutralize the situation. When we ask ourselves what do we have to gain from this besides more power after the cost of many American lives, is it really worth to have a repeat situation like Iraq and Pakistan? “The character of a foreign policy can be ascertained only through the examination of the political acts performed and of the foreseeable consequences of these acts.” (Morgenthau) The roots of all human nature is to obtain power, so out of losing many American soldiers lives, what do we gain? If we would have been more involved when we saw the sparks of conflict start, why did we not try to neutralize the sparks instead of fighting a huge wildfire.
They concocted a plan to conquer the Indies, but Japan believed that such a conquest would evidently bring America into war. To thwart American efforts to liberate the Dutch East Indies, Japan called for an attack on America’s navy. Using the attack on Pearl Harbor, Japan was able to secure the necessary resources from the Dutch East Indies which would help their war against China. Japan also expected to come across a revengeful America. Despite the threat, Japan believed that the resources they secured form both China and the Dutch East Indies would be sufficient in dealing with a petty
While theoretically honorable, the United States was repeatedly overstepping democratic principles in order to secure financial interests and was, in some cases supporting totalitarian regimes as long as those regimes bowed to the the United States' economic interests. Because of this, the United States needed to find a way to continue its quest for profit without looking like the bad guy. To do this, the United States needed to produce an enemy so evil that the United States would appear justified regardless of the methods they used to fight to defeat it. The United States found this enemy in communism and McCarthy's fanatical rants were the perfect way to spread this fear. Despite relentless investigations with almost unchallenged jurisdiction, however, McCarthy did not uncover a communist plot (Halbertstam, 58) yet did manage to assist in convincing the American people that communists were a threat to the American way of life and the government was justified in any means necessary to defeat communism even if it meant sacrificing "some of their nation's freedoms" (Halbertstam,
Liberal internationalism Two main bases; The first is the fear of and international ‘state of nature’ Idea that self-determination is a mixed blessing, While preserves self-government it creates a world of sovereign nation states controlling own freedoms and interests, possibly at the extent of other nations. In conditions of international anarchy, self-restraint may not be enough to ensure enduring peace. Two forms of prevention have been proposed First being international independence with the intention of promoting cooperation; (this is why liberal s support free trade between free nations) material cost would be huge in conflict, war would therefore be unthinkable. Libs also proposed a supernatural body/ bodies to bring order to otherwise lawless international structure. Seen in social contract theory; government is the solution to problem of disorder.
That is why Mearsheimer sustains that USA will be ultimately forced to react to China’s rise in the future. More explicitly, because China poses great threat (in the long run) for America’s balance of power in the international system. Based on these assumptions, it is somewhat clear that offensive realism has great difficulty in being challenged on historical grounds, Peloponnesian War and Cold War demonstrated it. Therefore,