Political Science Issues
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Since the mid-1980s, the United States and the Soviet Union, later Russia, have achieved substantial reductions in their nuclear forces. The primary factor in these reductions has undoubtedly been the end of the Cold War, by eliminating the perception on each side that its highest security concern was deterring a nuclear strike by the other. Nevertheless, the reductions negotiated to date still leave very large nuclear forces. Moreover, these forces are potentially unbalanced. START II is projected to leave Russia with some 1600 nuclear warheads by 2010, while the United States would retain an "upload" capability of up to 7000 warheads (von Hippel, 1997, p. 11). This is part due to the technical feasibility of placing warheads back aboard MIRV missiles whose warhead numbers have been reduced under the treaty, and even more to the ability to re-configure B-1 bombers to carry nuclear rather than conventional weapons. In this environment, even a relatively minor deterioration in relations might generate domestic political pressure in Russia for regaining parity. American domestic pressure would trigger a response, and an arms race could reignite. Frank von Hippel, among others, has recommended a long-term strategy of "deep cuts," in which the nuclear powers would mutually agree to reduce their arsenals to a far greater extent than arms reduction negotiations have contemplated to date, to perhaps 200 nuclear weapons each. Even most of these would be stored rather than
. . .
Security Council resolution could not be secured, the action was fought under NATO authority, with participation at some level by all members of the alliance. The primary role of multilateralism in this period was to legitimate American initiatives as serving world interests.
The second Bush Administration, however, came to office with a much more unilateralist approach to American interests. The Kyoto treaty on global warming was rejected outright, rather than attempt diplomatically to negotiate perceived American interests within the treaty framework. The terrorist attack in September of 2001 briefly provided broad international support for the United States, but this support was progressively lost as the US moved toward the war with Iraq. Most major members of the 1991 Gulf War coalition stood aloof from the 2003 "coalition of the willing." Administration policymakers chose to abandon the potential advantages of international support in order to maximize their freedom of action in confronting Iraq.
The current situation in Iraq, however, illustrates vividly the limitations of unilateralism. The military forces of the United States, supported by only one major ally, proved more than sufficient to defeat the Iraqi milit
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Bush Administration, Gulf War, START II, Atomic Scientists, Murray Spinoza, North Korea's, Saddam Hussein, Cold War, President Bush's, Grenada Panama, gulf war, war powers, foreign policy, imperial presidency, 2004 pp, international support, nuclear weapons, von hippel, freedom action, cold war, american foreign policy, domestic sources american, fisher 2004 pp, sources american foreign, evidence york bowman,
Approximate Word count = 2383
Approximate Pages = 10 (250 words per page)
|