The Problem Of Rational Deterrence Theory

Rationality, in International Relations, refers to how states implement foreign policies to reach its certain goals. In the film, McNamara explains his conversation he had with Communist Cuban leader Fidel Castro regarding Castro’s acknowledgement that Cuba would have been destroyed by the United States if Soviet Union had not retracted their nuclear weapons. To McNamara’s surprise, rational leader Castro expressed his full acknowledgement and confessed that he was willing to let his country destroyed. Based on that conversation, McNamara concludes that rationality sometimes leads to unnecessary deaths of citizens, and that is not okay because human lives and their rights matter. In the article, One World, Rival Theory, John Snyder asserts, “Constructivism often echoes the theme human rights and international justice activist sound.” McNamara’s conclusion matches with Constructivism, and his lesson is useful because it warns people to think twice about their foreign policies and consider the

The United States has been unable to fully break from Cold War mentality which began after World War II, and any attempts to try and adjust this policy have been done in miniscule steps resulting in little change. Deterrence has been a strategy utilized by several presidents and administrations since the onset of the Cold War, and in many ways it still remains the central strategy for current foreign policy. The objective of deterrence is to prevent foreign powers from committing unwanted actions against the U.S. or

The action that leads to the greatest net outcome of utility is then considered to be the correct choice. According to this theory, Alistair should choose the action that will maximise happiness and minimise unhappiness.

In the 1700s, crime was rampant across every town in every country. Constables formed small patrols from volunteers in the community and it would not be until 1829 that the first police department in the world would be established. In these early days, there was no uniformity to the punishments given for crimes, but extremely severe punishments were common. It was during this time that Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham were born.

Juveniles around the United States are committing crimes every day. When they commit these crimes, they may not know of the consequences that come with committing the crimes until they get caught. These young children or teenagers need to start learning the consequences of committing a crime before they grow older because if they do not learn, they will make their life miserable. The deterrence theory would be a perfect way to keep these young people out of trouble. Deterrence would play a huge role in to getting these young children or teenagers on the right path of their life. If you show them what the consequences would be or even give them real life experience they would be deterred from doing the things they have done in the past.

present the statistics in a manner that made them more relevant to the audience, per Sedivy and Carlson’s suggestion in Sold on Language as well as capitalizing on the novelty of seeing an important statistic put in terms of how many burritos could be bought, based on Luntz’s suggestion in Words That Work: It's Not What You Say, It's What People Hear.

Throughout the world crime is happening every single day. Yes, some people may feel as if the deterrence theory does not work. Due to the fact that crime still happens in the world. This essay will look at the support for the theory. As well as the key problems for the theory. Next, it will explain some of the newest directions in deterrence/rational choice theory. Finally, it will either agree/disagree with someone’s thought on deterrence and how it does not work and is a waste of time to study.

(Henriksen, 1999) The international community could attempt to dissuade the rogue nation from engaging in an act of war by threatening military retaliation. Tyrants have historically treated conciliatory actions in response to warlike behavior with contempt. For example, Hitler interpreted Neville Chamberlain’s agreement to the Munich Pact as appeasement and weakness, while Moscow removed its missiles out of Cuba in response to Kennedy’s political resolve and our country’s show of

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.

Realism has dominated international relations theory since emerging in the 1930’s. The era of state conflict lasting from the 1930’s to the end of the cold war in 1947, proved the perfect hostile environment to fit the largely pessimistic view of world politics. While many aspects of realism are still alive in International Relations today; including the dominant presence of states, intrinsic of war and the decentralised government. However, realism only reaches so far in explaining and creating a structure for international relations. Whilst the strengths of the theory lie in its pragmatic approach to power politics and conflict. However, the realist view is weakened by changes in the way that conflict is fought, the ineffectiveness of the balance of power model and the increasing global and interconnected world. Thus, using realism as a structure to explain international relations today is to some extent, a theory of the past.

Rational choice theory accepts that all individuals attempt to effectively expand their preference in any circumstance and in this way reliably attempt to minimize their misfortunes. The hypothesis depends on the possibility that all people construct their choices in light of sound figuring’s, act with discernment when picking, and intend to increment either delight or benefit. Rational choice theory likewise stipulates that all unpredictable social wonders are driven by individual human activities. Accordingly, if a business analyst needs to clarify social change or the activities of social organizations, he needs to take a look at the balanced choices of the people that make up the entirety.

Contemporary international relations is a complex field. Understanding events and attempting to make sense of them can be a daunting task. There are, however, tools available, which can assist in providing clarity to these complex issues. The first of these tools is historic knowledge. Without historic background of an issue, it is nearly impossible to understand the events driving that issue in modern times. A second tool, the one which will be the focus of this paper, is international relations theory. Theory can be defined as “a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action,” (Merriam-Webster) and can be used “in many cases as a basis of prediction.” (Mingst 56) There are three major theories which we

Rational choice theory is actually more than one theory per se, but the basic similarities among its variants mean that they can be intelligibly amalgamated for the purposes of critiquing its implementation in political science. Therefore public choice theory, positive political science, rational actor models, and the economic approach to politics, among others, refer to what we may call rational choice theory for the purposes of this essay. (See Green and Shapiro 1994, xi.

Realism is one of the main theories within International Relations. It provides the view that all actors within the international system act on their own self-interests to gain power. This essay intends to discuss its usefulness as a theory and the reasons for and against it being used to analyse world affairs. Firstly, it shall discuss how the theory is advantageous as it explains how shifts in the balance of power can lead to conflict however it is unable to explain why the distribution of power changes. Second, it will portray how it is useful because states do not need to be labelled as good or bad to fit the theory although it disregards the idea of Natural law and gives a cynical view of human morality. Finally, it will suggest that as the theory is very parsimonious, it can be applied to multiple situations within the world system. On the other hand, it will be said that it fails to look at individuals within a state and their influence on the actions of the state. These costs and benefits will be conveyed through the current tensions between the USA and North Korea to link the theory in with current world politics.

The international system is a self-help system; states are obliged to look after themselves, because there is no one else to look after them. Waltz does not assume that states are pursuing the increase in their power and the importance of them between others states, necessarily aggressive body, but he does believe that they desire to preserve themselves. This means that they are obliged to be considered with their security, national defence and obliged to regard other states as potential threats (Brown, 2001).