Essay about Mackinder or Mahan

Throughout the mid chapters we see the introduction of the great world wars. Even though the United States wanted to remain neutral, 18 months later after the war had started, over 2 million troops had been sent overseas to Europe, including the Navy and the Marine Corps. After WWI, we see a lot of naval disarmament and isolation in the country. Shortly after in 1940, the United States military entered in war again after the attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese. The victory of this war was accomplished by one of the most significant advances of military history, the use of atomic bombs. After WWII, the military participated into what was called the “Cold war Era” with the Soviet Union. From 1945-1991, the United States provided military support for war against the Soviet Union. During this period we see new navy innovations such as the introduction of

And, America was about to take on the greatest naval power in the world. America’s military was not prepared—less than 7,000

In the book 1812: The Navy’s War, Author George C. Daughan gives the reader an inside look into the events that led to the War of 1812 and war itself. Within the book, Mr. Daughan analyzed the conflict between the recently discovered Unites States and Great Brittan. The book gives in detail the short-term consequences of the War, as well as the lingering effects the war brought to the United States. By the end of Mr. Daughan historic text it is abundantly clear that the War of 1812 forever impacted the way the United States military operated. Mr. Daughan gives an outstanding synopsis of the United State’s rise as a military power, specifically the United States Navy. Daughan gives the reader an in-depth look of these gruesome battles, by using letters, journal writing, and other first-hand accounts of those directly involved in the war.

Mahan's article claimed that America must go forth with expansionism, for an “increasing volume of public sentiment demands it”, “the growing production of the country demands it”, and that “the Americans must now look onward” (Doc. C). Mahan's tactics were heavily reliant on naval forces. He believed that “Three things are needful: first, protection of the chief harbors, by fortifications and coast-defense ships...Secondly, naval force, the arm of offensive power, which alone enables a country to extend its influence outward” and “thirdly, no foreign state should henceforth acquire a coaling position within three thousand miles of San Francisco” (Doc. C)

To be sure, a surprise strategic Chinese attack is a valuable worst-case scenario to study, but protracted multi-dimensional U.S.-China competition for Pacific influence—akin to the contemporary era—is arguably more likely and, thus, a more sensible scenario against which to wargame. Also, despite its plausible portrayal of a localized insurgency, the novel stops short of depicting mass civil unrest elsewhere and social stability considerations that would almost certainly accompany a future world war. Nonetheless, Ghost Fleet’s technical narrative provides ample realistic content for today’s security and defense officials to balance and refine tomorrow’s warfare strategies. Singer and Cole’s near-future depiction of U.S. technological vulnerability in warfare should spur those officials to enable American innovation and adaptation in warfighting solutions well before the onset of strategic

Mahan also wrote a book that highly influenced how America is today called “The Importance of Sea Power Upon History”. In his book he wrote about the importance of having a strong Navy and the bases to support it. Mahan, contradictory to what is said before, did look at other countries as he determined what it was that made countries strong. He found that Britain had the most powerful Navy and that they had bases close to the coast of the United States. He saw that this created an advantage that the United States did not have. In his other book, “The United States Looking Outward”, he writes what he believes are the three main things that the United States should

The balance of power theory is viewed as critical policy in the handling of international relations. To fully comprehend how the balance

The contents of this paper reflect my own personal views and are not necessarily endorsed by the Navy War College or the Department of the Navy

The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.

Numerous motivating factors contributed to US overseas imperialism, but the fundamental underlying cause was the fact that powerful men within the US government, military and business strata craved power, expansion, wealth, and most of all, world dominance. It began subtly, as prominent businessmen like Rockefeller and J. P. Morgan began to realize that US consumership alone would not sufficiently sustain the growing industries, volume of production and produce generated within the US. In order to achieve the expansion and exponential growth of wealth they aspired to, a larger market was needed; a market capable of absorbing the abundant surplus. The solution, they believed, was expansion into foreign markets around the world.

History has told us that the Soviet Union and its allies lost the Cold war and that more or less disproves this theory as the Soviet bloc controlled the lands Mackinder outlined. Secondly MAckinder vastly undersells the power of East Asia and the Americas. This highlights the views of Europe at the turn of the 20th century when the power of the world was still firmly centered in Western Europe. In all though this theory of Mackinder’s is insightful and is an excellent snapshot of the mindset of the world in

Parts five and six bring together the personal and professional relationship between Marines themselves and the American public. These relationships, forged by the millions of men and women who have donned the Marine Corps uniform, are a result of training methods and careful selection. General Krulak gives the reader a taste of why Marines do what they have come to be known as America’s force in readiness. First to Fight has many good traits. The book, while easy to read and addictively interesting, never sugarcoats the intense conflicts between high level officials. General Krulak enhances the “official” record with personal accounts of events and people now legendary. His no-holds-barred approach to his writing makes General Krulak’s book both honest and educational. His explanations of the struggle to keep the Marine Corps alive and the early development of amphibious doctrine make First to Fight a must-read for anyone interested in understanding the modern Marine Corps. In parts of the book, General Krulak provides a mountain of detail. While these facts would be of great historical value for a reader who knows military structure and nomenclature, they tend to bog down the reader at points. The political volleys also tend to get tedious when the General describes the how the Marine Corps had to fight tooth and nail for institutional survival. These

So the theory suggests that because democracies externalise their interstate norms, they resolve disputes with other states like them in a peaceful way. Hence domestic inner-state policies influence their foreign policies. However, this proclamation is disputed by C. Layne who argues that the ‘crux’ of this theory is that if the assumption that democracies promote their peaceful inner-state norms and beliefs, then they shouldn’t ever threaten other democracies, especially not in a crisis. I will use the case study of the ‘Trent affair’ to provide evidence of how war was avoided. I will argue that in this case, war was avoided not because of the domestic pacific influence on foreign policy but because of other strategic reasons.

Nearly all of us wish to have a peaceful world free from wars and struggles for our generation. However, as far as the world is divided into many nations, such as the Middle East, the West, Far East Asia and African origin, the realisation of such a peaceful world seems far from being possible in the near future. Even though the United Nations Organisation was established for the purpose of ending power politics it has not been able to function so well as supposed or intended in its inception. Thus the world has remained just the same as before and we still live in an age of power politics. In the general international relations literature, realism stands out for its central focus on the idea of power. The balance of power endlessly debated and variously defined and it is the core theory of international politics within the realist perspective. In "Politics Among Nations" (1948), Hans Morgenthau, "the father of realism" in international relations, defined international politics as “The aspiration for power is the distinguishing element of international politics. The struggle for power is universal in time and space and is an undeniable fact of experience.”

The first paradigm of international relations is the theory of Realism. Realism is focused on ideas of self-interest and the balance of power. Realism is also divided into two categories, classical realism and neo-realism. Famous political theorist, Hans Morgenthau was a classical realist who believed that national interest was based on three elements, balance of power, military force, and self interest (Kleinberg 2010, 32). He uses four levels of analysis to evaluate the power of a state. The first is that power and influence are not always the same thing. Influence means the ability to affect the decision of those who have the power to control outcomes and power is the ability to determine outcomes. An example of influence and power