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.

Blog Post 2

“Intervention” Through the United Nations

By Carolina Parra

To some, intervention can only mean a series of consequences and negative outcomes. It is agreeable that intervening between countries or states can further deepen the problem at hand or, in some cases, not benefit either side. However, the United Nations is an organization that deals with the affairs between countries while maintaining peace.

In studying each school of thought, in my opinion, liberalism has the most realistic and logical way of approaching different matters. Through cooperation, opposing sides can find a common ground.  In this blog I will be giving an insight as to why the United Nations is a vital organization in the cooperation amongst nations.

The intentions of the UN are solely to preserve peace through mutual security and international collaboration. They have the biggest collaboration in promoting world stability. I see it as a form of intervention but intervening in a way where the situation does not worse but rather countries progress.

For sake of providing a counterargument, one can say the Security Council is a biased council because there are only 5 permanent members, with veto power, that represent the whole council. This can contradict the beliefs of the UN. Although this may seem unfair to other countries, the five members that represent the council deserve to be representatives due to victories in World War II.

The United Nations efforts do not go without notice. They have made steps toward world peace by intervening nation by nation and then coming to a common ground. I feel like without the United Nations the world would be a place of hatred and misperception as their principles [cooperate in solving international problems, promoting respect for human rights, maintain international peace and security, to be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations and develop friendly relations among nations] only promote positive intervention amongst nations.  

Bryan Pfeffer Post 2

           The democratic peace, at the true core of the theory, is specific only to the international system. States are classified as “democracies” and “non-democracies.” However, the heart of the theory is based on more applicable premises. The democratic peace theory is predicated on states with similarities (with a democracy being the unifying element) having better relations. While this is not the only explanation offered, I think it is the most valid. Empirical data shows that states are most likely to have conflict when transitioning from democratic to non-democratic and vice versa. In this situation, they are severing their ties with their like-minded allies and have yet to join the other group. This leaves them susceptible to a wide range of attacks without many allies based on similarity.

            This theory, that bodies related by a unifying factor are more likely to have positive relations, is applicable to many other things. One that I will discuss is the interaction between politicians. 

            Politicians, you may have heard, also have a distinct unifying factor. Political partisanship. One may argue that this is because people choose partisanship based on their views. I would agree, but they do not perfectly align on every issue, yet they still tend to have much better relations with those of their own partisanship.  For example, in the Republican Party, there are many different sects with differing beliefs. There are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, moderates, and libertarians, among many other groups. However, in the party, they often work together for establishing and accomplishing goals. These particular goals may or may not align well with the aggregate beliefs of the party, but the fact is they are willing to work with differing members of their own party, and less partial to working with others.

            Unions also work with a similar unifying quality. Once again, many people have different needs to be fought for. Some employees would prefer a higher wage rate; some would prefer safer work conditions; some need better health benefits. However, they are also unified by the fact that they all have a similarity: their employer.  So when unions are fighting for better work conditions while an employee might rather get a higher wage with the money the company would spend to improve conditions, that employee likely will still support the union. This is because they have the distinction of their employer.

            A final system that operates based on group membership is very evident here at Maryland, and much less official. The way that people interact depending on if they go/went to the same school is very dynamic. For example, I know that personally I cannot say that everyone I have met here at school has been a likable person. There are definitely people here that I would prefer not to spend any time with at all if possible. However, this becomes inexistent in two settings, the first being sporting events. At Maryland football games, we become unified by the fact that we all go to Maryland, and relations drastically improve. The second setting is when I am in places other than school. It’s very easy to make conversation with Maryland students or alum based on our unifying fact.

            These examples may not be perfect, but they all portray the fact that similarities that unify groups effect the way they act. This applies to the Democratic Peace Theory as well. States with similar traits (democracy or non-democracy) are less likely to feud.