Military Approaches Of India, Philippines And Switzerland

To discuss about the conclusion of the Dodge’s case study, I think I should explain the concept of brinkmanship first. As we know, Brinkmanship is deliberately put crisis to the brink of disaster. At some point of using brinkmanship, will be able to increase the players ' negotiating leverage - -participants. For example, the struggle between National political and military, if a long-term military confrontation between the two countries, both sides have nuclear weapons, the weaker side in order to avoid a conventional war can be used to launch nuclear weapons to threat another one which side is stronger. However, this threat may be considered to be incredibly for strong side. The question is coming that how it can threaten by one of the weak side becomes confidence and let stronger side believe in weak side? Perhaps the country 's leader can devolve control of nuclear weapons - nuclear weapons are arranged at the border, targeting the enemy and by a general to grasp the nuclear button. This seems to be more dangerous, but in fact may produce a real strong deterrent. Once the outbreaks of war in the border, despite the weak leaders do not want to start nuclear button, finally the general who faced death may also start nuclear button to meet them death together. This is most famous case in history happened in the Cold War of Cuban Missile Crisis. I will pay attention to this case in the following paragraph.

Following military acts of governmental authority or national warfare, a significant worry arises for nations. As stated in the powerpoint, especially when the state is large and diverse, it is much more likely that it is becomes fragile. The question of whether the nation will need national-building, or state-building has to be determined in the case of military acts. State collapse can be due to the failure of the nation to convey favorable diplomatic benefits to the nation. The collapse of a state can be due to a number of reasons, for example the vast amount of governmental goods. Also, the failure of a nation can be caused by the lack of providing protection and safety, a permissible organization that examines

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

The United States (US) is constantly looking for ways to improve relations with other countries and to follow their National Security Strategy (NSS). To aid the US in analyzing different countries, the PMESII-PT is used as a formula to keep everyone on the same page. The PMESII-PT contains eight different variables which help the United States analyze how different countries can affect their National Security Strategy. These variables include: political, military, economic, social, information, infrastructure, physical terrain, and time. These variables can be used to help better understand the situation and most important aspects of any country. Japan is a major country that can have a large impact on US relations and build on the current NSS. Throughout this paper, the PMESII-PT variables are examined to help educate and show how Japan can affect the United States’ NSS. After reading this paper, one can gain knowledge on how Japan can have a large influence on US interests in the Pacific/ Asian Command (PACOM) region.

The United States’ status as the dominant power in Asia may become contested as China modernizes its military. America’s main source of power in the region comes from its air and naval forces, and if it cannot capitalize on freedom of movement, it will lose its strategic advantage. This paper postulates that if China continues to develop its anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) forces that directly counter the United States naval and air forces, there may be future threats to American primacy in Asia. China’s response to the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis and its understanding of necessary strategic deterrence against external United States aggression has pushed it to improve its military capabilities. This essay is divided into four sections, with

This essay will reason that in a more contested Asia-Pacific strategic environment, Australia will not need to develop a more independent strategic and defence policy, but should reduce reliance on its United States’ ally. The Asia-Pacific region is continuously undergoing great economic growth and development and many countries are enjoying the benefits derived from it, including Australia. On the other hand, the world is seeing a rise of military and economic powerhouses in the region, most notably China. This topic is critical for academics and policy makers to understand the implications of the contested environment and how to deal effectively with all the consequences that could undermine the region’s prosperity, peace, and stability.

Vietnam and Afghanistan are “most-likely” cases because no other states in the post-World War II period have had such lengthy periods of war that combined, just as in Europe, external and internal conflict. Obviously there are important fundamental differences, including history and geography, between the two cases. Another key difference is that Afghanistan is still at war and Vietnam is not, but this difference is not critical: in the cases will show how war helped strengthen the Vietnamese state while weakening the Afghan one, so we are able to examine the posited theoretical mechanisms and show their operation. Further, these are the best two cases for our purposes because the length and lethality of these wars permit more detailed tracing

American foreign policy has begun to tilt towards defense from Asian threats. According to Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., the navy and the air force desire for the majority of their services to be located in the Asia-Pacific region by 2020. The military desires these modifications in order to control China’s aggressive behavior. In the article “How to Deter China” by Andrew F. Krepinevich Jr., he suggests that these changes, along with others, to boost American military are necessary in order to maintain Asian-Pacific peace. However, in order to confirm or deny his accusations, other theories must first be analyzed. Ikenberry’s institutional approach will be analyzed and compared to Krepinevich’s deterrence theory.

The classical nuclear deterrence strategy used during the Cold War would require some modifications in order to be effective against non-state actors in the 21st century. The United States and the Soviet Union had enough nuclear weapons between the two superpowers that deterred both from using. This was because it would not be beneficial socially or economically for either in the long-term. Non-state actors are not equal in most respects to state actors and sometimes considered “not deterrable” , so therefore a modified approach may prove more effective.

Even with India’s population on a path to surpass China’s, it doesn’t come close to matching China’s economic output or military capability. According to Porter, a Concert-Balance strategy would involve the only economic contender that can compete with China vacating all its overseas bases in order to project power from abroad. Porter argues that the “withdrawal of America’s military supervision would see the re-emergence of natural checks against predatory behavior.” Douglas Stuart's previously mentioned critical aspect of containment must be considered in recent context. China is already displaying aggressive behavior through the expansion of its military footprint onto the Spratly Islands. In one year’s time China managed to turn a submerged reef into an island complex complete with a radar station and air strip. Additionally, the Chinese government rejected The Hague’s ruling that China has no rights to the disputed portions of the South China Sea, all the while continuing with the reclamation of additional islands that are claimed by several other stakeholders in the region. Porter mentions that the tenuous nature of balancing within the East and Southeastern Asia regions was negated in 2007 when China issued threats in response to planned military exercises between the U.S., India, Japan, and Australia. India and Australia ended up forgoing the military

Structural realism in particular provides a good understanding behind the apparent hostility amongst nations in the world. It is the lack of central and legitimate authority at the international level and the uneven natural distribution of material resources that generates competition amongst nations. This competition often turns into hostility; therefore every state is potentially at risk of a hostile action from another competing state . Thus, the structural organization of world politics leads to an inherent need for countries to defend themselves against potential threats. Since the national interest of all states is to ensure their own survival and provide security to their citizens, states aim to increase their power, or more specifically their military capabilities. By increasing their power, the states aim to increase their odds of survival and prosperity in the anarchical world. This idea is referred to as the self-help system where countries aim to defend themselves by building up their military or entering in military agreements with other states sharing similar values and facing similar threats

Yet despite the different goals in each of the categories, they are far from disconnected in practice. Political, economic, and military tools are as intertwined as their counterparts in a Realists Balance of Power system. In The Balance of Power in International Relations, Richard Little describes power as a function of the size of the population and territory, resource endowment, economic capability, military strength, political stability and competence. (Little, 174) Stronger nations tend to show stronger

Theories are used in many fields of science, but in no field are they more prevalent than Political Science. These theories are often used and researched upon to try and attempt to discern how states interact with one another. Offensive Realism, a new branch of realist political theory, is brought forth in John Mearsheimer’s book, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. This theory focuses on the key aspects of realism, while adding a twist as to why war is an option. In his book, Mearsheimer explains the history of great powers, and predicts that China, the world’s current rising great power, will not gain hegemony in Asia peacefully. With the rise of China, he asserts the US will form coalitions with multiple states throughout Asia, to contain their growing power. This rise in power, and subsequent reactions by the US, are based on his theory Offensive Realism, which is used to predict China’s future actions. The rise of powers, and the reactions of other powers, is historically analyzed, beginning in the late 18th century, all the way to modern times. These analyzes each attempt to support his overall claim that China will rise through non-peaceful means, and shows significant support with historical examples. While the theory often meets an exception when the usual non-European power, Japan, is mentioned, Mearsheimer’s theory introduces a solid new aspect to the realm of Political Science, and presents enough evidence and information to be considered integral to

Grieco states that the key interest of states is not about individual well-being, but survival and security at their core interest. A problem that will inhibit cooperation between states is the uncertainty of one state about another state’s future intention. As such, states pay close attention to how cooperation might affective their relative capabilities in the future, and the possibility of a more power potential adversary (Grieco, 1988). South Korea and Japan currently have a strong economic interdependence as we have addressed earlier in their trading relationship, it is highly unlikely that the two countries will have

The most important facet of this conflict deals with the large size and potential devastation of military conflict between these two nations. What differs from fifty years ago is the amount of military capabilities both India and China have accumulated over that time span. Through the China-India conflict, one envisages a scenario where a nuclear-armed China and India with more