IR 358 wanna kms

Question 1

Critical Security Approach

Answer 1

is an explanation not prescription as to how emancipation, not power nor order produces true security

Emancipation - process of being free of legal, social, political restrictions

Question 2

What is security?

Answer 2

There is no one definition of what security is as the concept is subjective, but it is the accumulation of power - it’s commodity, you must possess enough things to obtain it.

Question 3

Is AI a national security issue?
What kind of threat does it pose?
Can it be solved using military force? If not, How?

Answer 3

Can’t answer this yet, but I will need to - on the exam there will be something like this but maybe for climate, health, etc.

Question 4

Zero-sum game

Answer 4

describes a relationship, competition, etc where one person’s gain is another’s loss.

Question 5

Security Dilemma

Answer 5

JOHN HERZ
Offensive Realism - a situation in which actions taken by a state to increase its own security cause reactions from other states, which in turn lead to a decrease rather than an increase in the original state’s security. - John Herz

Question 6

Constructivism

Answer 6

identity is the main driver of politics
Everything we see as objective is a social construct

Question 7

Anarchy

Answer 7

Lack of central authority in the international system. States are in a state of self-help.

Question 8

Assumptions of Offensive Structural realism regarding the International system?

Answer 8

Mearsheimer - why states pursue hegemonic power?!
1. anarchy
2. all great powers have some offensive capabilities
3. uncertainty about intentions
4. main objective - national survival and security
5. great powers are rational actors

Question 9

Power?

Answer 9

Latent power - based on the size of the state population and wealth
Actual Power - army, air, navy

Question 10

Coercion

Answer 10

Schelling - Coercion involves using threats of damage or violence to influence behavior in situations where interests aren’t entirely opposed, aiming to make compliance less costly than the threatened consequences.

Question 11

Brute Force

Answer 11

Schelling - No negotiation or threat, doesn’t care about opponents potential compliance, employs sheer physical dominance

Question 12

Civilized warfare

Answer 12

Schelling - when there is proportionality, an artificial distinction between combatants and civilians, reluctance to punish collectively, and the rush to end conflicts.

Question 13

Holy Trinity of War?

Answer 13

Mearsheimer:
The people - the passion
The commander and his army - the chance (probability)
The government - the reason (the politics)

Question 14

Inadvertent war

Answer 14

Schelling - not deliberate, but accidentally being put in a position where war is inevitable.
ex. Falkland’s war - UK/Argentina

Question 15

Splendid first strike

Answer 15

Schelling - leave the other side with no possibility of a counter attack ex. Hiroshima

Question 16

Chance - definition

Answer 16

Clausewitz - comes from friction or fog of war:
friction: always an element of unknowing, weapons/soldiers fail
Fog of war: multiple aspects that commanders are unaware of that affect their ability to make the right decision.

This is why Clausewitz doesn’t think war is straightforward

Question 17

Maintain Hegemonic equilibrium?

Answer 17

Gilpen: Realism
the international system is more likely to remain stable when a single state is the dominant world power, or hegemon.

maintaining the equilibrium can be done through:
1. increase taxes domestically
2. Increase tariffs from the international system

Question 18

Gilpen’s cycle of hegemony

Answer 18

Hegemonic equilibrium → 2. hegemon provides collective goods for system → 3. Rivals gain Power rapidly → 4. Disequilibrium: Hegemon overcommits and weakens rapidly → 5. Hegemonic war

critique:
- too realist - oversimplifies military power, neglects concepts of Clausewitz
- doesn’t think about economic inter-dependence // globalization
- IOs?

Question 19

Balancing through alliances

Answer 19

Stephen Walt
ally in opposition to the principle of the main source of danger.

Question 20

Bandwagoning

Answer 20

Stephen Walt -
ally with the state that poses the major danger to share the thrills of victory and to avoid attacks on himself. Ex. Italy in WWI

Why:
1. weak states are more likely to
2. when they’ve alienated other allies ex. Finland after WWI had to with SU bc they sided with Germany

Question 21

Aggregate power

Answer 21

Stephen Walt Defensive realist
- 1. source of threat
the more resources a state has, the bigger of a threat they are, so stop a state from getting all the materials.
causes a state to either seek balancing or bandwagoning

Question 22

Proximity

Answer 22

Walt: 1. source of threat
States align because of proximate power, neighboring states pose a much larger threat than states who are far away
leads to bandwagoning if they are weak/small in comparison to their neighbor. ex. Finland and Russia

Question 23

Offensive capability

Answer 23

Walt: 1. source of threat
states with big offensive capabilities are more likely to provoke an alliance than states that are weak or defensive

uses balancing and bandwagoning

Question 24

Offensive intentions

Answer 24

Walt: 1. source of threat

aggressive states are more likely to provoke other to balance against them.

Question 25

Ideological solidarity

Answer 25

Walt: alliances that result in sharing political, cultural, or other traits. the more alike = more chances to be allies problem: some ideologies promote conflict among similar states ex Hitler and Stalin

Question 26

Penentration

Answer 26

Walt: instrument of alliance formation indirect manipulation of one states political system by another “The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy” - APACT’s goal is for Israel to have a direct say in the US foreign policy - this is an example of penetration

Question 27

Structural Realism

Answer 27

Thomas Risse States are the dominant and unitary actors in international relations calculating ends and means rationally The international system is anarchic, constituting a self-help system Rational states calculate their interests in response to the power structure of the international system superpowers use bribery or persuasion so that smaller partners accept the hegemonic system

Question 28

why small states can prevail?

Answer 28

Liberal ideology - Thomas Risse liberal bargaining theory 1. can make up for their lack of power through the alliance leader due to being clse to the topic at hand. 2. when SPs want relative gains - they use small alliances (domino theory) . Small states can explout this and turn the SP concerns into a bargaining strength 3. the more threatened a SP is, the greater the bargaining power of the smaller ally is 4. small state are powerless when facing SP alone, through pooling resources they can have a strong, united front. 5. If there are issue-specific resources that the alliance leader needs.

Question 29

relative gains

Answer 29

benefits gained during trade agreements individual winnings zero-sum gain

Question 30

Absolute gains

Answer 30

Refer to gains reaped during trade agreements benefits are to all parties involved

Question 31

types of alliances

Answer 31

John Duffield defensive alliances: formed for collective defense in case of an attack on the member ex. NATO Offensive alliances: helping members achieve aggressive objectives Non-aggressive alliances: agreements not to attack each other, but without the commitment to defense ex. UN

Question 32

John Duffield on alliances

Answer 32

alliances are vital instruments of international security, but their effectiveness hinges on the careful management of commitment, credibility, and the evolving geopolitical landscape.

Question 33

Walt on alliances

Answer 33

Trade is not a good enough reason to avoid war - as most all countries trade with each other But alliances give an economic underpinning

Question 34

Capabilities aggregation model

Answer 34

Label to define the pooling of resources together (especially military) to enhance security

Question 35

Coercive model

Answer 35

There has to be an idea of an external threat that enhances coercion - Duffield, John There is a trade off between losing some of their power in exchange for security - James Morrow

Question 36

Wallander alliances

Answer 36

Alliances represent security institutions Standing Operating procedures - the enemy should be predictable, thus, we need rules, IOs help do this through accountability and transparency

Question 37

Constructivism - alliances

Answer 37

alliances represent communities and domestic determinants like ideology and socialization

Question 38

Marxists - alliances

Answer 38

economic gains workers of the world unite ideology/economy to have a capitalist bloc so both liberalism and realism traits

Question 39

Realists - why do alliances endure?

Answer 39

International determinants - Distribution of capabilities - Threat persistence

Question 40

Alliance management - Realists

Answer 40

Burden Sharing ex. Trump in NATO, can't be a free rider

Question 41

Marxists - why do alliances endure?

Answer 41

domestic determinants - ideology International determinants - threat persistence

Question 42

Neorealism - alliance management

Answer 42

the strong do what they can the weak suffer what they must

Question 43

Eliza Gheorghe main idea

Answer 43

Main argument: the structure of the international system, significantly shapes the dynamics of the nuclear market, influencing the level of supplier competition and thwarter effectiveness, ultimately determining the likelihood and pace of nuclear proliferation.

Question 44

Gilpen

Answer 44

hegemonic war occurs when a challenger goes against a hegemon Usually the challenger is the one to initiate the war. Or there is a preventive war - integrate with the last lesson. PICTURESSSS - DRAW!

Question 45

Mearsheimer

Answer 45

Offensive realism, which argues that the international system is anarchic, and great powers are inherently driven to seek maximum power to ensure their survival. Mearsheimer's main point is that this relentless quest for power often leads to conflict and competition among states, as no state can ever be truly secure. He contends that the tragedy lies in the fact that even peaceful intentions cannot prevent the dynamics of power politics from escalating into potential conflicts, as security competition is inevitable.

Question 46

Offensive realism?

Answer 46

Multipolar systems are more war-prone than bi-polar systems Expect a war in an unbalanced multipolar system. Mearsheimer

Question 47

Liberals - why are alliances created

Answer 47

democratic peace theory market gains ideologies Audience cost theory - when democratic governments make promises, it’s much harder to go back on that promise

Question 48

Offensive Realism - Why states pursue power

Answer 48

Mearsheimer 1. Anarchy: lack of a global centralized power 2. All great powers have some offensive capabilities 3. Uncertainty about intentions 4. Main objective: national survival and security 5. Great powers are rational actors need all five of these!!

Question 49

Schelling's main idea

Answer 49

Focuses on the role of military power and coercion in international diplomacy, introducing the idea that military force is as much a tool for influencing and threatening adversaries as it is for direct combat. His central thesis revolves around the concept of coercive diplomacy—using the threat of violence, rather than actual violence, to influence the behavior of other states.

Question 50

Dual-Use technology

Answer 50

technology with both peaceful and a military use. ex. Nuclear reactors

Question 51

Enriched Uranium

Answer 51

Uranium where the total mass has had its isotopic composition altered.

Question 52

Nuclear blackmail

Answer 52

nuclear states use its nuclear arms as an explicit threat against a non-nuclear state

Question 53

Nuclear capable

Answer 53

are states that have all the infrastructure and knowledge to make nuclear weapons but have chosen not to. Ex. Canada

Question 54

Nuclear reactor

Answer 54

a facility/machine that produces nuclear fission chain reaction. are dual-use technology and need uranium to operate and produce plutonium as a waste product.

Question 55

Nuclear sharing

Answer 55

Nuclear power using a non-nuclear state to host its weapons.

Question 56

Plutonium

Answer 56

Artificial element and is used in nuclear bombs.

Question 57

safeguards

Answer 57

monitoring of dual-use technology

Question 58

Tethering

Answer 58

AKA - Bound functions of alliances Witzman!! The role alliances play in restraining or controlling the behavior of allied states, ensuring they act in ways that align with the collective interests and prevent destabilizing actions. This function aims to "bind" allies to agreed-upon security objectives, often reducing the risk of unilateral or reckless moves by member states. ex. what NATO does with Turkey

Question 59

Security Dilemma Proliferation

Answer 59

1. A distrusts B and acquires power for defense 2. B interprets A's actions as offensive 3. B acquires power for their own defense 4. A interprets B's actions as confirming initial basis for mistrust this is how all the countries who have nukes, got nukes

Question 60

Scott Sagan

Answer 60

3 different models to explain why states build nuclear weapons or not 1. the security model - emphasizes a states need for nukes as a response to nuclear threats - OFFENSIVE REALIST 2. Domestic Politics Model - Influence of domestic actors who encourage/discourage nuclear programs - LIBERALISM - because domestic politics shape international politics 3. Norms Model - Symbolic meaning of nuclear weapons as a reflection of a states identity in international system (if you're a SP you have nukes) CONSTRUCTIVISM

Question 61

Counterforce

Answer 61

Attacking military basis such as nuclear basis, or ICBM

Question 62

Preventive

Answer 62

when a power is rising so you strike before they are able to get enough strength to become the SP

Question 63

evolution of warfare

Answer 63

Schelling: war was a sport of Kings Now, war is a national effort, this ties directly into what Clausewitz says "war is nothing but a continuation of our politics"

Question 64

War

Answer 64

An act of force to compel our enemy to do what we want

Question 65

Deterrence

Answer 65

the use of threats to dissuade an adversary from initiating an undesirable act.

Question 66

Compellence

Answer 66

coercing an adversary to do something or to stop doing something.