Rapid Modernisation Of Armed Forces

North Korea, formally known as the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (DPRK), is a relic of the Cold War and the world’s last remaining totalitarian Stalinist dictatorship. Arguably the most secretive state in the world, North Korea poses a unique set of challenges to the world, especially to its democratic and capitalist neighbor, South Korea, formally known as the Republic of Korea (ROK). As one of the last remnants of the Cold War era, North Korea remains an anomaly of the international system due to its unpredictable nature and disregard for international norms. With the recent bombardment of the South Korean Island of Yeongpyong and the sinking of the warship Cheonan, tensions between the two Koreas are at the lowest point since

In the early 20th century the strength of a nation’s military was a symbol of the power and wealth of the nation. Pre World War 1 marked the beginning of advance weapons for the army and the navy. The spending of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy, Britain, France and Russia in their military budged increased by 4x (World War 1). The countries had strong reasons to build their army’s strong to gain more colonies and also protect them, while also protecting their homeland. The rapid growth in military spending prior to World War 1 caused European nations to fear for their safety causing fighting to breakout.

One of the security challenges facing the United States (US) is the US and North Korea relations. The US policy toward North Korea is diplomatic yet firm. North Korea is our longest standing adversary. Policy toward North Korea is one of the most enduring foreign policy challenges. In this essay I will discuss the security challenge of U.S. and North Korea, the theory of international relation, realism, how it illuminates this challenge and how the instruments of

This course is an introductory course, surveying major issues in international politics. The first section

Kang quotes scholars saying “…there appeared to be one race, and the West had strung the tape at the finish line for others to break…” and “… many of our international-relations theories … see East Asians as identical to Westerners in goals, attitudes, and beliefs.” However, Kang argues that East Asia had a different system, even the opposite, of the European “balance of powers”. Europe’s system created unavoidable war as the states fought to stay equal.

Because of these build downs, The United States military has reduced its strength by about a third of what it was in 1985.  Despite this reduction in military strength,  U.S. military deployment has gone up a third (Kaminski 1).  This does not make good sense.  Just because the Soviet Union has crumbled does not mean that all of America's worries have faded away.  There are new threats that have replace the terror of Russia.  These include regional aggressors such as North Korea, Iraq, and Iran (Federation of American Scientists 1).  Regional conflicts among these lesser powers have grown in importance because of the invention nuclear weapons of mass destruction.  Since the breakup of the Soviet union, the market has been flooded with inexpensive military arms.  Some of these arms have found their way into regional conflicts (Sandler 2).  The possibility of another World War can not be dismissed from the possibilities as well. The world still contains potential dangers for the U.S., and a strong military must be in place for any of these threats.

It is no longer appropriate to say, “China is quickly emerging as a global superpower.” The fact is China is just that. Realizing this the United States of America has attempted to once again turn its focus eastward. Continuing problems at home and in the Middle East however have made doing so difficult. Additionally more and more frequently attempts at influencing the ongoing narrative in the Asia- Pacific region have been rebuffed. Even allies have found strength in the emergence of a system that fails to conform to previously prescribed methods and ideals. This leads to a fundamental question America must answer quickly. Has the growing hypocrisy of idealistic political rhetoric versus actual foreign policy finally undermined American credibility with developing nations, or for the purposes of this paper more specifically China? The answer is yes.

International relations have been one of the most interesting and at the same time controversial areas of study since the Cold War. The world silent conflagration determined a reconsideration of the way in which politics was conducted and the relations between states at the level of the balance of power and the importance of international actors.

Thee presence of anarchy in the international system; the lack of central authority in the international system must be acknowledged when analyzing state affairs. Realist theory argues that states act in response to anarchy and presume the international system to be one of self-help. States are self-interested actors that look to maximize power and ensure security. This security dilemma in current US-Sino relations about nuclear arms. In an attempt to compete with the US, China is “‘increasing its existing ability to deliver nuclear warheads to the United States and to overwhelm missile defense systems.’” China is exhibiting relative gains, as it measures its own nuclear arsenal relative to the one of the US. Because the US is seen as threat to China militarily, China’s response has been to develop their defense industry. By increasing their industry sector, China is attempting to balance power its power in the international system by countering the power

From an international relations perspective, the Taiwan Strait, one of the most likely conflict zones in the Asia-Pacific region, has been dubbed the “Balkan Peninsula of the East.” The status of Taiwan has been one of the most intricate issues in international relations arena for the past decades. The Taiwan question is essentially an extension of the “two Chinas” problem, which creates a dilemma for accommodating

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

It can be said that in the case of the USA and North Korea, the current tensions developed further because of the start of nuclear weapons programmes in North Korea which created panic in US government (Pevehouse and Goldstein, 2017, p. 31). Realism highlights how this shift in the balance of power threatens US security as they are no longer a more

South Asia is a volatile region. In particular, India and Pakistan have, since the end of the Cold War, been widely regarded as the two countries most likely to become involved in a nuclear war. The cultural, religious, and ideological tensions that underlie the state-tostate antagonism are very deep-seated. The long and contested border, frequent armed conflict and mutual distrust result in an inherently unstable situation between the two nuclear armed rivals. This study will summarize the nuclear history of India and Pakistan, illustrate the dangers of instability, and examine potential U.S. actions to enhance stability in this contentious region of significant security interest.

ASEAN has played a key role in managing the disputes over the South China Sea (SCS) as part of its commitment to promote peace and stability in the region. The disputes were related to territorial claims over Spratly and Paracel islands and maritime boundaries involving four ASEAN members, namely Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Vietnam as well as the People’s Republic of China (and Taiwan). The potential escalation of conflict to open war in the region, due to military build up by China and external intervention by the United States, puts ASEAN into a central position to play its role as an ‘honest broker’ or mediator. The stalemate of discussion over the SCS disputes since the 2012 ASEAN Summit should be an indication for ASEAN to revitalize its role and to start taking serious steps in a diplomatic manner to provide peaceful solution for the conflicts.

During Mahathir’s premiership (1981-2003), Malaysia enjoyed a cooperative relationship with the US on economic and security fronts. Politically, however, there has been much tension between the two states.