12 World Problems

In his writing, he stated that war is intrinsically vast, communal (or political) and violent. It is an actual, widespread and deliberate armed conflict between political communities, motivated by a sharp disagreement over governance” (p.135)

In Paul Johnson’s “American Idealism and Realpolitik Critique” about American involvement in political battles in foreign countries, he brings forth the idea that the American government plays a vital role when it comes to mediating and facilitating conflict. Their importance can often be overshadowed by some opinions that the government, specifically the army, has over stepped its boundaries by intruding on countries and excessively becoming involved in hostility. Johnson notes that without American intervention, there would be cause for a considerable diminish in aid and possibly a rise in disputes. Johnson compares to America’s duties to Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan in which the lack of control over the discord between countries results in an anarchy that would leave the world’s population to “‘continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” (Johnson 387) Although he does put a stress on the significance of the American government, he does not ignore the obvious moral flaws that sometimes tarnish this reputation. When adding up the pros and cons of the United States authority, Johnson’s writing favours the positive aspects but also has hints of neutrality; this attitude is quite fitting considering America’s actions.

For many years, people have satisfied their needs, without showing any concerns or awareness about the care of our planet, the way we treat our environment is described by some, like murder. Thus, it is natural to ask ourselves if the environment should be protected because and only because human livelihoods depend upon it or the opposite, that us, humans, exist only because of our planet, and that we should do all our best to save the air we breathe, the ground we live on, the entire environment that surrounds us. First of all the study will begin by what the environment is through time, then it will show the obvious relationship

Charles Tilly’s article “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime” creates an analogy between the creation of European states and acting out an organized crime. Earlier in our course, we learned about Max Weber, who defined a state as “a human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Tilly argues that the word “protection” in relation to physical force has positive and negative connotations, leading to illegitimate use of power during the period time that Tilly is discussing. Tilly’s analysis eventually tells the reader that war is always a major part of state politics; specifically that war making and state making are interdependent.

Under the Regan and Bush administration and their war on drugs, the military became heavily involved in the drug law enforcement (Kraska 282). The police paramilitary units raided civilian’s private residences in order to control the drug epidemic (Kraska 284). In his article, Peter B. Kraska defines militarism and militarization and differentiates between the two, in short, he defines militarism as an ideology geared toward problem solving, which involves using tools such as military power, hardware, technology, and operations; and methods such as force and violence to solve problems (Kraska 282). When it comes to militarization, Kraska states that it exists through the application of militarism. Militarization uses the tools and methods of militarism in order to prepare individuals for violent conflict, the process involves arming, organizing, planning, training, and resorting to

Because of numerous efforts by countries such as North Korea and Syria, the competition for acquiring nuclear weapons has escalated from what it was formerly. As this expands over time, it will increase the chance for another international conflict. In order to prevent this from happening, a substantial idea is to have the United Nations address this issue. With it’s vast amount of members, the UN can set a guideline for all its countries that limits the amount of weapons they are allowed to possess. By doing this, it will aid in relieving the tension occurring between multiple nations and provide international

There is evidence of correlation between conflict and military intervention. But according to the studies, military intervention’s increase in conflict was only a short-term issue, “initially, military intervention upset the local balance in power between cartels and local police – which is particularly relevant if these bodies were infiltrated by organized crime – thereby increasing the violence in the short term” (Espinosa and Ruin, 26), but that the same interventions decreases the homicide rates in the long term. Thus military intervention is not the cause of conflict in the form of homicide rates, but rather in the change in power in local authorities. But can one still blame the Mexican government for the increase of conflict? According to Michel Coscia and Viridiana Ríos, President Calderón did not start the Mexican Drug War and violence did not start because of the interactions of two or more cartels operating in the same territory (Ríos, 22). By implementing a computerized search algorithm, they both developed Coscia and Ríos went through all of Google’s database to search any information that was ever been published online and indexed by Google News in national or local press as well as in particular

Mitchell brings to attention the two actors the principle and the agent. In the relationship between principals and agents the principal can never be certain of complete control if behavior from other bureaucracies provide a guide to the private interest of agents and their ability to hide their interests and actions from the principal contribute substantially and systematically to the human toll of the bureaucracies of repression. For some of the agents the violence may simply be a task to perform in order to achieve the leader’s goals, for others violence may be a raw end not a means. Agents can seize opportunities provided by their offices and uniforms to supply personal gratification from violence.

Since 1970 the United States has been involving itself in foreign policies and issues concerning drug trade, violence and war in developing countries. For example, when overdoses in cocaine started to arise across the country, the U.S. began to suspect issues. Now at this time Pablo Escobar and the Medellin Cartel were creating an international cartel with its basis in Colombia. Now the when we got involved a number of issues arose. These cartels and other groups begin to revolt, causing chaos and in attempt to take over the government. While the fear the U.S. puts into the minds of these groups may be to our advantage, it also brings serious issues. These groups are known to kill and harm citizens and public spaces when they are threatened. We must keep in mind that these groups have multinational coverage and networks within their countries government.

Evidence: The Trident missiles can be given an extended life span, which will provide a massively capable and cost-effective platform for the decades to come. . . Our nuclear submarines are undetectable and cannot be taken out by a pre-emptive strike. That is why they provide the best form of nuclear deterrence available to us. (Hutton, 24, 26)

“ Guns are not a form of power, only a form of destruction. Although, sometimes, destroying something is the only way to have peace. Military Force is justified to be used after discussion isn’t effective. An overlooked problem today is that are Military Force is being used causally, rather than using it as the absolutely only option for peace. Peace and force contradict each other, which is why using force to gain peace should not be used as such an impromptu act.” (Gonchar)

I disagree with Kenneth Waltz’s position that nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place, and how best to measure the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly in regimes that are developing, unstable, or “third-world.”1 While some scholars see nuclear weapons as a threat to stability and peace due to their mass destruction capability and the potential for horrific fallout triggered by ethnic and geopolitical instability, others see those weapons as holding the power to maintain an appropriate balance of power between opposing regimes at times of tension and during periods of low level conflict. This debate is reflected in international relations.

Political Violence has been affiliated with governments and nations since the beginning of political history and plays a huge role in the causes of Wars around the world. What causes leaders to declare war? Many philosophers have based their studies and theories on this question; many have different perspectives. One philosopher, John Stoessinger, has expressed his theories on the causes of war through what he calls his “misperception framework.” Stoessinger shows great interests in the personalities of world leaders; he is less impressed with the roles of abstract forces such as nationalism, militarism, economic factors, or alliance systems as the causes of

“War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. This famous quote is from James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., who served as the 39th President of the United States. It implies that war can be justified under strict circumstances where it can be necessary, but it is still abhorrent. War is defined as a state of armed conflict between different countries or different groups within a country. Justification refers to the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. War brings many negative and catastrophic impacts not just to the country, but to the people living in the country as well, which this paper

There is no dispute that the Middle East, for the past century, has been a region plagued with tension and conflict. Differences in religion and ethnicity have been the source for hundreds of thousands of deaths, and the progression of those issues have shown very little evidence of slowing down as the bloodshed continues. Many parties on the global scale fear that the combination of evolving technology and weaponry, and desire to harness nuclear power, is fueling the hatred that some of the countries in the area have for one another and will eventually lead to an extremely disastrous nuclear war. As a result, international global organizations, such as the United Nations, have been working to prevent such an outcome. They are