A Vicious Cycle

Defensive theory asserts that aggressive expansion as promoted by offensive neorealists upsets the tendency of states to conform to the balance of power theory, thereby decreasing the primary objective of the state, which they argue is ensuring its security . It is very important to say that Mearsheimer is not satisfied with Waltz’s theory. Great powers are seek to maintain the security and thereby the status quo. The international system creates strong stimulus, forcing the great powers to look for opportunities to increase their own power at the expense of competitors. They are interested not only in imbalance of power, but also interested in the maximum weakening of their competitors. Every great power will seek to change the balance of forces in its

Both superpowers developed technology and used their nuclear power to build as many weapons as possible... But others feared the use of these weapons. ”(Doc. 7). The arms race gave more power to both countries but it made them both so strong that they can influence the world by themselves because of the strength of these weapons.

The U.S. has a history of being bad at entangling alliances. According to George Washington, “We need to be careful of tangling alliances” (Fromkin). For this reason, the United States was dragged into WWI. America should be constantly increasing its military, but for national defense, not for policing the world (Schneider). America's national security depends on America to stop getting involved in everything and to secure its borders. If America could stop spending millions on policing other countries; the weight of this task would be shifted to a group of nations that have their governments under control.

The Cold War lead to Space because both sides wanted to prove their superiority of their technology, their military power, and by extension, their political-economic system. While the Russians and Americans never went to war, both nations were in an ideological

was striving for postwar world supremacy. During postwar WWII, The U.S. was “... planning to arm Latin America with our weapons…” (Doc D). Not only that, but “... the Bikini tests of the atomic bomb and continued production of bombs…” (Doc D). That brings up the questions, why is The U.S. arming surrounding countries and supporting production of atomic bombs if the war has already ended? Could it be that they are just defending themselves, or are they planning something much worse? There is quite a bit of evidence to undeniably support The U.S. had a great thirst for world

In the late 1980’s, there was an increase in space organizations like Air Force Space Command which sparked a major interest in space weaponry. Following what Reagan wanted done with space, these organizations began a push for a present in space with the same force as their capabilities in the 1950’s and 1960’s. As Reagan had expressed blatantly in early 1983, he wanted a space presence, and that it will be a part of the United States’ arsenal. His leaving of office sparked a large push for space technology. This push for space technology is directly influenced by a leader, just as Truman proposed his ideas about space weapons and the potentialities of it. Reagan’s interest for a presence in space as a means of power over other countries, created

Unfortunately indicative of the politics and policies in today’s terms, foreign policy increasingly occurs 150 characters at a time through Twitter, and the unhinged behavior often displayed by our executive leadership damages our national image and ability to effectively manage foreign policy. This fosters a political climate bent on retribution, vilifying dissent, and clear lacks of self-control does not convey an image of national strength and admiration. Unfortunately, this reinforces the stereotypical worldview of American’s and our politics as “the gun toting cowboy” that shoots first and asks questions later. While “the gun toting cowboy” is part of our culture as a nation, an “environment of threat inflation, frenzied overreaction, confusion, complexity, and uncertainty requires cool judgment” (LeVien 16), but cool judgement and detailed planning are not the hallmarks of a shoot-from-the-hip approach. Fulbright spoke to this in The Arrogance of Power in comparing two Americas when he clearly portrayed “the gun toting cowboy” as self righteous, narrowly egotistical, and arrogant in the use of power (Fulbright 245). This only reinforces Fulbright and Bacevich’s

United States involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last thirteen years has resulted in much debate over the role of the United States military. This debate is encouraged, as it will sustain conversation of how to best employ an important yet dwindling national resource. The publication of Dominic Tierney’s article “Why Has America Stopped Winning Wars” speaks directly to this debate. The article argues that the US military has lost the capability of winning wars since World War II . Tierney posits that the world is a more peaceful place and the United States is incapable of adapting to the resultant style of low intensity conflict that normally rises with state peace. He believes the U.S. government has a lust for global hegemony. The excessive use of military force is the only way to quench Washington’s thirst He concludes with an implication that American’s victory culture has led to disillusionment of our government’s expectations, and that this culture should be reexamined in order to prevent unnecessary loss of life in the future. Although Tierney makes a valiant effort to question US military strategic efforts over the last 70 years, he fails to realize that America’s emphasis on national security is a major contributing factor for why the world has seen a reduction in state-on-state war.

President Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his extraordinary, worldly diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” During the early twentieth century, he brandished that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy in support of his country’s political objectives. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him as a diplomat and Commander in Chief was the superior power of the United States military. “Historically, power has been measured by such criteria as population size and territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. Hard power enables countries to wield carrots and sticks to get what they want.”1 Power, a nation’s ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms or elements within a state. Powerful states strive to employ all the elements of power, including diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and most importantly military to further their national objectives. Although a reasonable person might expect that a militarily powerful state routinely triumphs over the weaker state in matters of war, superior military power only guarantees a victory on paper, not in any real war. This paper will show that when one considers a state’s relative military power, weaker states are capable of defeating more powerful states that struggle to formulate

McMahan’s argument by analogy is successful since it is true that, as he stated, “When only one state gets nuclear weapons, it enhances its own security but reduces that of others, which have become more vulnerable… As more states get them, the incentives for others increase.” It is agreed upon that same occurs

Toronto, Canada---- Since the end of World War Two, the United States and the Soviet Union have experienced a number of political clashes. From the Marshall Plan to the Korean war, to testing nuclear weapons, and to the use of missiles, the United States and the Soviet Union have definitely established a divide between the two empires. The growing dependence of the United States in Europe and Great Britain has increased imperialist speculation from the USSR. However, the United States justifies their presence though the policy of Containment, in its attempt to defend democracy. Also since post World War Two, there has been a massive increase of arms in both the Soviet Union and the United States. From the booming economy of the war and the devastating atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the United States became a global superpower. The need for efficient nuclear weapons suddenly became an obsession. In 1952, the USSR managed to develop their own Atomic bomb, which threatened the position of the United States. And from there an arms race began. The use of nuclear weapons is an extreme that neither empire wishes to reach, however, the public is not certain.

After World War II, a new enemy was in the horizon: technology. In the 1940’s, the United States was the leader of the “Free World” paving a path and setting an example for the rest of the world to follow (Maland 191). Americans believed the misconception that “American society was sound, and that communism was a clear danger to the survival of the United States and its allies” (Maland 191). The U.S. maintained a policy of containment by fighting communism wherever it may be, and in a show of might in 1952, they detonated the first hydrogen bomb (Maland 192). Only a short year later, the mighty Soviet Union announced that they too had the Atom bomb (Maland 192). And, when the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957, the United States became alarmed that they were falling behind in science and technology. Because the Soviets had the same capability to annihilate the world with the bomb as the United States, tensions between the two countries increase daily. But, this new war tactic brought into question man’s ability to make decisions of nuclear proportions with

Nuclear weapons have only ever been used once in human history, and that was during World War II when The United States deployed missiles on Japanese territory, in Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At the time of bombing in 1945 only the USA had developed nuclear weapons, whilst today the pool of states consisting of nuclear weapons is still extremely small, with only nine states laying claim to nuclear technology and weaponry. This nuclear proliferation is explained by Darryl Howlett who explains this as the worldwide spread of nuclear weapons. For Howlett states are nuclear driven because of the ‘strategic, political and prestige benefits’ attached to nuclear weapons[1]. In the

This behavior offers the question, if America should use its power or if the U.S. should better behave like other nations with a certain distance towards other countries’ problems.

There is a huge expense in maintaining and building the nuclear arms that we use for deterrence. Nuclear information is secret, taking great amounts of money and time, to research and keep it confidential. Power is gained from the research and development, which is definitely worth the expense. The great amounts of money spent on nuclear technology help ensure the security of the people of the United States. It takes huge amounts of money to have the edge in nuclear technology. However, nuclear deterrence is even cheaper than war. The cost of building, operating, and maintaining nuclear weapons is only $26.7 billion per year (Hellman). "This is significantly less than the cost of the 1991 [Persian Gulf] war, which came to nearly $80 billion" (Dobbs). Deterrence is economically and politically intelligent.