Victoria Ellington Blog Post 3

Victoria Ellington

Blog Post 3

Nuclear Weapons: Worth the price?

This L.A. Times Article explores the issue of the cost of nuclear weapons.  It raises the question of whether the money the U.S. is putting into the nuclear weapons program is legitimately worth it or not.  I believe that this is a sensitive issue and it is difficult to determine what the correct way to handle nuclear weapons is, but ultimately I think that the expenses are justified.  Global disarmament is a utopian concept and completely unrealistic, therefore nuclear weapons must be maintained.  A nuclear war has never occurred and in order for the U.S. to successfully participate, they must have completely up to date weapons.  On the other side of the argument though, up to this point it only seems nuclear weapons exist for the point of negotiations.  Much of a nation’s power depends on the perception of their attack capabilities.  For example, we, as in the U.S. fear any nation we suspect has nuclear weapons and therefore their power over us is increased and our security threatened.  The only way to combat this is to “fight fire with fire” and make them fear us by developing weapons that are equally as destructive.  The issue lies within the fact that there are other more urgent and realistic military threats which need to be funded at the same time.  In a convoluted way, maintaining nuclear weapons may actually be a means of keeping the peace because it ensures that if nuclear war were to begin, the destruction would be mutual and therefore it is not even worth engaging in such a conflict.  Game Theory is what instills fear in each nation and the unpredictability of what other states might do compels the U.S. to continue spending money on nuclear weapons.  Instead, more focus should be placed upon developing and maintaining weapons in a more efficient manner and handling outdated weapons so that they do not increase unnecessary costs.   

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-nukes-cost-20141109-story.html#page=1

M.A.D. post 3 Carlton Klein

There is a school of thought that says nuclear weapons made the cold war safer by making the costs of conflict unthinkable.  The idea is that because a nuclear war would be so devastating no rational leader would ever order their use.  Overall I agree that nuclear weapons reduced the odds of full scale conflict between the US and the USSR but I take issue with the idea that that was a sure thing.  While both sides were clearly terrified of the consequences of a nuclear war miscalculations and misinformation brought the two super powers to the brink on multiple occasions. 

                Even if we were to assume for a moment that the theory is correct and not leader would ever issue orders for a first strike there is still the problem of misinformation.  In fact misinformation has brought us closer to nuclear war than most people realize.  In 1983 a soviet early warning system detected the launch of an American ICBM.  Luckily the commander on duty decided that it was a mistake and did not sound the alarm.  One false alarm would have been worrying enough but over the course of several minuets the satellite detected four more launches.  Humanity’s luck held and the commander decided to consider these false alarms as well.  The timing of this incident, a few weeks after the soviets shot down a passenger plane and during the heightened tensions of the Regan era, made it particularly dangerous.  These heightened tensions meant that the USSR was in a high state of alert and would have launched a “second strike” immediately if the commander had trusted his equipment.  Some might say that it was fear of nuclear war that prevented it that day and that this is proof of the power of MAD.  While I think the seriousness of the consequences encouraged him to err on the side of caution they were not the deciding factor.  More important was the unlikely pattern of the launches (firing a few missiles one by one instead of by the hundreds) and earlier worries that the equipment was faulty.  If this was not the case and the satellite had shown hundreds or even a few dozen launches things would have played out differently that day. 

                The second incident has to do with miscalculation.  During the Cuban Missile crisis a number of soviet submarines were equipped with fleet destroying nuclear torpedoes and sent to Cuba in defiance of the American blockade.  American harassment forced the subs to stay below the surface for days before dropping warning grenades.  The submariners believed that they were under attack and some thought that nuclear war had already begun.  Ultimately they had to choose between surrender or attack.  One of the sub commanders chose to use the nuclear torpedoes.  Luckily the fleet commander vetoed his decision against the wishes of many of the men and they surrendered.  The soviet leadership had made a serious mistake in sending nuclear armed subs into a known blockade that was fully capable of forcing them to surface and had clearly stated its intention to do so.  The submariners did not fully understand their situation and the Americans harassing them were completely oblivious to the sub’s armament.  Had the man who gave the order or one of the other supporters of attack been the fleet commander the Cuban missile crisis would have ended differently.  In the best case scenario the use of the sub’s nuclear torpedoes against a military target out in the ocean could have been dealt with diplomatically without starting a full nuclear war but that is by no means a certainty.  And what if the sub had been armed with nuclear missiles rather than torpedoes?   Many on the sub believed that nuclear war had already started and wanted to get their shot off rather than surrender.  What difference would it have made to them if the nukes they launched hit ships or cities? 

                MAD may make people more restrained in their actions but it is no guarantor of peace.  The fact that we survived the cold war is thanks to luck not fate and if we draw the wrong lesson from our survival, if we choose to believe that nukes make us safer, one day our luck may run out. 

Carolina Parra Blog Post #3

Carolina Parra

GVPT200

The United Nations; an organization committed to developing friendly relations among nations, maintaining international peace and security, and promoting social progress, better living standards and human rights, but can the rightfulness of the UN be questioned? The Security Council, containing a really powerful body, is one of the structures part of the UN that I find the most debatable.

There are a total of fifteen members that make up the Security Council, but out of those fifteen, only ten rotate. What about the other five? Those remaining five members are permanent and hold veto power, which, in my opinion, provide them with an unfair advantage in decision-making. The five permanent members of the Security Council are the United States, England, France, China and Russia. With the dramatic increase in the Security Council’s activity, the goals of the permanent members may not completely reflect those that make up the rest of the council. The five permanent members actually gave themselves the right of The Veto when the UN was set up in 1945 and have stuck to it. Such a thing called The Hidden Veto exists which is being constantly used by the five members as a way, almost a threat, to get their way. So how is every member being equally represented?

The purpose of the United Nations is to promote, not only peace, but also equality among nations. The power of the permanent members goes against this purpose because their own distribution of power is unjust.

Although some may argue that these five nations have acquired the right to this power because of winning World War II, there has to be a realization that this was almost 70 years ago and the way things are and should be handled, have changed. Many nations other than the five permanents have had successes, so there should be an equality of power instead of putting five other nations on a pedestal in the Security Council.

I believe that the United Nations Security Council should be reformed because, in the long run, the influence of the UN can diminish due to contradicting its own purpose. What nation, not part of the permanent five, would want to devote time to the UN when their influence can be insignificant.

Aubri Paredes Blog Post 3

Aubri Paredes

GVPT200

As many of us may know, the United Nations was established in 1945 following WWII. It was set up as an attempt to further prevent the initiation of any future aggressors and to promote peace amongst nations. In essence, the idea by which the United Nations was established proves to be a sincere and just way for the unification of the people on earth as a whole. After all, the purpose of the UN is to maintain peace amongst nations.  Although some may feel that the United Nations stands more so to acquire control and power over some nations, rather than with the intentions of helping them, I feel that the platform of the United Nations, fundamentally, can do more good than damage.

            In my opinion, with the knowledge that I withhold of the UN, I am all for an institution that promotes world unity and peace amongst the countries that share this earth. I believe that in the world we live in today, it is imperative that peace be a primary factor. As I was on New York Times, I came across a briefing of the article, Sudan: Investigating Reported Rapes. The article speaks on how the United Nations- African Union are working together to investigate the rapes of 200 women in the Darfur region of Western Sudan. I love this aspect of the United Nations. It shows that when a country is so weak or its government is too corrupted and drifted that it does not care, there is still is hope and protection for the citizens of that nation. I also feel that promotion of unity amongst different nations is vital to maintaining peace. If the countries that mark this earth were to be more united, communication would be more efficient and it could result in avoiding many conflicts that go on today.

            I understand why some people may feel some animosity towards the United Nations. But then again we must keep in mind that the United Nations was concocted by people:  people who lead nations and are confronted with different issues daily, people who share a difference of opinions, so inevitably there are things that will occur that not everyone may agree with.  While on Google, I found a website that shares some of their critiques of the United Nations. The website is called loveearth.net. They believe that the United Nations was established not to bring good to the people, but more so to try to keep control of the countries. They also believe that the so called “leaders” of the UN are not equipped to adequately run such an institution. Due to this, they believe that the reason under which the United Nations was formed was not to just simply instill peace.

            All in all, I personally believe that the reasons under which the United Nations was formed can be extremely beneficial to this world, and are agreeable. However, I also take into consideration the fact that there may be some slight deviation from the platform under which the United Nations was formed. One thing that I appreciate about the United Nations is how they bring aid to people who cannot receive it, whether it is due to an inefficient government or conflicts that steadily aroused.

Critiques of UN

http://www.lovearth.net/criticismoftheunitednations.htm

Sudan story

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/06/world/africa/sudan-investigating-reported-rapes.html

Blog Post 3 (Bryan Pfeffer)

The security council of the United Nations is probably the most prominent committee in the entire international system. People occasionally debate whether or not the system should be reformed. I strongly believe that the United Nations should not reform its current system. There are three reasons that reforming the current system is a bad idea. The first is the risk of losing the five states with veto power. The second is the risk of inexperience of new members. The final reason is that the possible introduction of states may lead to nothing getting done.

There is inherent risk of losing countries from the Security Council that once held a veto seat that lose that seat in reformation. These states are crucial to the effectiveness of the council. Without prominent states (in large numbers) getting behind the decisions of the Security Council, their decisions hold significantly less weight. A country with less resources than a powerful state (let’s say Israel) may see an ally (the United States) not recognize the legitimacy of a decision made by the Security Council (maybe some policy towards Israel/Palestine) and feel as though they do not need to take it seriously. This sets a precedent, and the legitimacy of the committee crumbles. Granted, this example is not realistic, as the United States will be a veto-power state regardless of reformation, but this could easily happen to a different state. The United States is just a simple example.

The next reason not to reform the Security Council is the risk of introducing inexperienced members into a very experienced veto committee. Without an understanding of the reasons why states choose to veto, countries may not be perfectly capable of making these decisions. As brought up in discussion, the five veto countries very rarely exercise their option to veto. This allows for the United Nations Security Council to run relatively smoothly. Vetoes are predictable. Introducing a new veto group takes this predictability away. If rulings that get vetoed are unpredictable, this may discourage actions from being taken. It also may lead to rulings that need to be vetoed getting overlooked. Inexperience may have serious ramifications for the Security Council.

Finally, a higher number of total vetoes could happen for two reasons. The first would be if the reformation involved adding more veto countries without taking any away. This is feasible, as taking away the veto power of a state would be a very risky move (as previously discussed), but new countries also are gaining power in the world and may deserve to have a vote. The other reason total vetoes may increase is there may be rival states serving with veto power. In this rivalry, they may inherently decide to disagree with their rival state. In doing this, veto numbers would drastically increase and virtually nothing would come out of the Security Council. This consequence would, in effect, ruin the committee.

Overall, I think reforming the United Nations Security Council would be a big mistake. In almost no situation will the council be able to be as effective as it currently is post-reform. For now, at least the short-term, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.