Midterm 1

Question 1

deterrance

Answer 1

dissuading someone from an action by frightening that person with the consequences of the action

Question 2

self-defense

Answer 2

military action taken in response to an attack

Question 3

preemptive war

Answer 3

war used against imminent threat (you have strong bases that they are about to attack you)

Question 4

preventative war

Answer 4

threat is less than imminent but have strong basis that it will become much greater with time

Question 5

alliances

Answer 5

union formed for mutual benefit or interests

Question 6

military assistance

Answer 6

weapons, advisers, financing, and other aids to an organization (pro-american government or rebel group)

Question 7

coercive diplomacy

Answer 7

threats (ex: official protest, issuing public condemnation, withdrawal of ambassador, suspending diplomatic relations, imposing economic sanctions)

Question 8

covert action

Answer 8

secret operations of intelligence agencies to defend interest in areas where military not suitable and diplomacy won’t work

Question 9

coercive

Answer 9

relating to or using force or threats.
(ultimate example is war)

Question 10

diplomacy

Answer 10

formalized system for states to conduct official relations

Question 11

Democratic Idealism

Question 12

Neocolonialism

Answer 12

pressure to control influence other country

Question 13

Imperialism

Answer 13

extending a country’s power through force

Question 14

Jentleson Argument

Answer 14

4Ps are framework that help analyze priorirites for FP

Question 15

Basic goal of FP

Answer 15

self-preservation and defend democracy

Question 16

Jentleson - Power

Answer 16

(R) Ability to get others to do what you want, defined by military (coercive) or economic (conditionality)

Question 17

Jentleson - Peace

Answer 17

(L) all aiming for this, sees world as system of cooperation to achieve common interest of reducing war risk (interest conflict with this, so organizations are best fit to make action)

Question 18

Jentleson - Prosperity

Answer 18

give high priority to economic interests either economist (collective prosperity) or private benefit of elite (imperialism/neo-colonialism/exploitation)

Question 19

Jentleson - Principles

Answer 19

(C) give priority values, ideals, and beliefs US stands for, rooted in Democratic Idealism (“right” makes “might” in long run, others will follow, DPT/soft theory)

Question 20

Examples of 4P Complementary

Answer 20

1947 Marshall Plan. FA program to reconstruct in EU. Used power to preserve economic interest, install democratic principles, and keep peace.

Question 21

Examples of 4Ps Conflicting

Answer 21

Tianmen massacre meant they got limited sanctions because economic interests and power > principles of social support

Question 22

Examples of 4Ps Failure

Answer 22

Iraq in 2003, power failed to eliminate threat, principles backfired peace, market not stabilized for prosperity, peace not established

Question 23

Nye Argument

Answer 23

(C) Soft Power is power, does not need material resources; important in domestic politics and sets agenda to attract others in world politics without coercion

Question 24

Counterargument to Nye

Answer 24

power does not mean resources because it doesn’t always get you what you want (ex: Vietnam or 9/11)

Question 25

Detracts to Nye Argument

Answer 25

Soft power difficult to observe, most effective in similar cultures and democracies, achieves general goals than specific ones

Question 26

Krauthammer Argument

Answer 26

(R) Prediction that US would be unipolar and increase war risk from WMD from rogue states correct

Question 27

Krauthammer Example

Question 28

Detracts to Nye Argument

Answer 28

Soft power is difficult to observe, most effective in similar cultures and democracies, and achieves generic goals than specific ones

Question 29

Posen Argument

Answer 29

Abandon current strategy for restraint to: protect specific security interests, small army fight only necessary wars, incentivize others to build own security

Question 30

Posen Reasoning

Answer 30

US spends too much money on unecessary militarization bc geostrategic , causes SOFTBALANCING (CH and RUS vs UN); US involved in preserving values where not wanted (hostility towards US aka Iraq), and Free-Riding & Moral Hazard at our expense

Question 31

Posen New Strategy

Answer 31

Other states will maintain balance of power (asia keep track of china), fight terrorists without nation building (more intelligence efforts, less intervention), and limit nuclear proliferation by sharing safety rules and threats

Question 32

Brooks Argument

Answer 32

(L) engagement with alliances is disproportionately beneficial to us, should keep it as it prevents war outbreaks and insecurity, keeps economy going, makes cooperation easier

Question 33

Brooks Counterargument

Answer 33

Little evidence that we would save money, counterbalance is diplomacy and we use too (ex: coordinated with Asian countries to oppose Beijing claims in SCHSea), manages relationships and keeps regional insecurity from nuclear proliferation

Question 34

Lynn-Jones Argument

Answer 34

(L) Pro-democratization as it benefits citizens, promotes peace (DPT), serves US interests (reduce threats, refugees, and better economic partners)

Question 35

Lynn-Jones Counterargument

Answer 35

DPT is real, democratic process keeps peaceful resolution, democracy resolves internal conflict and prevents backsliding,

Question 36

Brands Argument

Answer 36

(L) democratic absolutism is not the answer, wisdom in restraint and engagement.

Question 37

Brands Examples

Answer 37

For Activism, Reagan assert US power to SK, Philipp, CHile, LA to establish stronger democratic regimes, Against Activism, BUSH's freedom agenda in Iraq invasion, For Restraint, US intervention aiding rebels in Libya and hestiant engagement to not overreach. Against Restraint, Jimmy Carter in Iran and Nicaragua was destabilizing.

Question 38

Waltz Argument

Answer 38

Spread of nuclear proliferation is good for stability because MAD, hard to deter Soviet Union from proliferation, Peace under three conditions

Question 39

Walts Argument Conditions

Answer 39

1) No preventative war (one is building nuclear while other already has) 2) survive a retaliatory attack aka secure 2nd strike forces, 3) No accidental use (instability, rogue leaders)

Question 40

Waltz Evidence

Answer 40

Civilians see nuclear war more negatively, ex: Truman military wanted to bomb Korea but preventative war not democratic, BUT Pakistan initiated preventive war with Indida; organizational impediments is China nuclear army development

Question 41

Sagan Counter argument

Answer 41

Waltz conditions are not realistic, states have conflicting interests within themselves, military is nuclear trigger happy while civilian opinion is under control

Question 42

Sagan Argument

Answer 42

Nuclear proliferation potimists are confused on what rational states would do, non-proliferation is the answer, add

Question 43

Edelman argument

Answer 43

pessimism about diplomatic efforts and sanctions to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons, more robust military would

Question 44

Actors in FP Decisions

Answer 44

President, Congress, Appointments, Ambassadors, National Security Council, Public, Interest Groups, Media

Question 45

Tannenwald Argument

Answer 45

deterrence as theory isn’t enough to explain why war hasn’t happened yet, there’s global normative prohibition on using weapons first (taboo)

Question 46

Tannewald Argument Conditions

Answer 46

Taboo is necessary to explain non-use, it regulates existing activities even if no official rules exist, it categorizes nuclear into unacceptable weapon, permissive side effect is conventional weapons don't receive same ciriticsm