Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
28 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
War |
Sustained, coordinated violence between political organizations
Sustained (large scale) violence - Not sporadic Correlative Of War (COW) - At least 1k combined battle deaths of armed forces Between Political Organizations/Violence must be reciprocated
|
|
|
Costs of War? |
Human life: (deaths; wounded; readjustment; civilians; refugees) Economic: $8.3 trillion through 2008; $1.3 trillion preparation for war globally |
|
|
Various Causes? |
50% Caused by territory: contributes to wealth; strategic value (Philippines); Ethnic, cultural, or historical value (Jerusalem)
Policy Disagreement (2001 Afghanistan)
Regime Type (1965 Vietnam)
|
|
|
Levels of Analysis (LOA) |
Individual: Characteristics shared by all humans such as human nature. Also examines across individuals including belief systems, personality, management styles (Saddam was aggressive and narcissist) National/Nation-state: Factors associated with government or society. Government variables include infrastructure of the political system and the nature of policymaking processes System: Anarchic structure of system; number of powers; distribution of power (equal power leads to war) Dyadic/Interactional: examines the bilateral interactions between pairs of states |
|
|
Dependent vs Independent Variables |
Dependent= Outcome of a conflict (Crisis or Militarized Interstate Dispute (MID)); 3 variables- No agreement (status quo), Agreement, War
Independent: Found in the LOA framework (leader, relative power, government, etc.) |
|
|
Militarized Interstate DIsputes |
Conflict in which threat, display, or use of military force short of war by 1 member state explicitly directed toward the government, official representative, official forces, property, or territory of another state
Threats: Verbal Display of force involve military demonstrations but no combat interactions
|
|
|
Balance of Power (BOP) |
Difference between the economic, military, and educational superiority between two states |
|
|
Realism |
Defensive and Offensive Survival Key actors are Sovereign states Act rationally to advance security, power, and wealth Anarchic international system Uncertainty of others actions |
|
|
5 Premises of Offensive Realism |
States seek power, predatory, get more from war than in negotiations, worst-case analysis, perceive nothing will stop them (anarchy)
Predatory states and leaders because of anarchic system Uncertainty about adversary intentions (Worst-case analysis) States believe expansion is the best way to provide security Weapon systems are all offensive |
|
|
Defensive Realism |
Anarchy does not force states into conflict and war If states seek only security, then states can avoid war States balance power against threats to their interest and not the strongest power in the system Boulding loss of strength gradient Weapon systems can be purely defensive |
|
|
Security Dilemma |
Even if everyone wants peace, generates mistrust and fear that the other states are expansionist
|
|
|
Alliances/Coalition/Aligned |
Alliances- Formal, long term to accomplish goal Coalition- Less formal, short-term, and specific issue Aligned- Common policies and informal cooperation |
|
|
Formal Alliance Types |
Entente, Neutral, and Defensive
|
|
|
Constraints of Alliances |
Provokes counter alliances Entrapment/reckless ally Buck passing (free-riding) Reliability |
|
|
Misperception Definition |
Discrepancy between the psychological environment of decision makers and operational environment of "real world" (Only meaningful if there is a "correct perception") |
|
|
Forms of Misperception |
Capabilities, intentions of adversary, and role of third parties |
|
|
Form vs Path: Military overconfidence |
Form: Military Overconfidence Path 1 to war: cost-benefit calculations of decision maker Misperceive true value of p (probability) of winning (biased upwards), so state attacks
Form: Military Overconfidence Path 2: Via a failed bargaining process Overconfident state expects opponent to make concessions, if they cannot resolve problem, overconfident state escalates and uses significant violence
|
|
|
Form vs Path: Military underconfidence |
Form: Military Underconfidence Path 1: Conflict Spiral Underconfident (insecure) actor builds military capabilities, other state becomes suspicious and mistrustful so it reciprocates From belief that war is inevitable, preemptively attacks
Path 2: Via repeated bargaining Underconfident makes concessions at time (t), signals to opponent that adversary can be exploited, at time (t+1), demands escalate |
|
|
Form vs Path: Exaggerate Hostility (intentions/threat) |
Form: Exaggerate Hostility Path 1a: Worst-case thinking Preemptive strike Path 1b: Bargaining failure
|
|
|
Vietnam Facts |
Ho Chi Minh Leader August 1945: Proclaimed Dem. Rep. of Vietnam Independence lasted less than a month- France attacked Geneva Accords 1954: France, UK, USSR, PRC Partition Vietnam at 17th parallel Goal- Set up state in south to hold line against north (Nation building) US did not want elections, provided south with assistance to defend itself Installed new premier in S. Vietnam- Diem Diem cancelled elections, referendum to confirm family rule S. Vietnam independent N. Vietnam ASSUMPTION: US are colonial successors to French and Saigon is the illegal puppet of the US 1956: Planning for use of ground forces began: Military assistance Advisory group trained south vietnamese army Diem alienated people from his regime Resistance in South became increasingly violent ASSUMPTION: violence to due communist infiltration of south by the north 1960- National Liberation Front- le Duan Insurgency to topple Diem 1963- Diem assassinated Saigon cycled governments, they were weak, ineffective and corrupt 1964- Gulf of Tonkin Resolution 1964 NLF attacks US air base at Bien Hoa 1965- 2 marine battalions arrive |
|
|
Misperceptions Vietnam |
Character- V. Thought the US was hypocritical; US thought they were helping Beliefs- US believed V. wanted absolute communism Capabilities of Third Parties- Chinese helped V. Historical Analogies- V. and Korea are the same Underestimate resolve- Bombs would force V. to surrender Resolve- V. would fight until they were all dead |
|
|
Deterrence Theory |
Levy and Thompson Definition: Dissuasion of an adversary from taking an action that would be harmful to one's own interests
If you want peace, prepare for war Corollary: peace through strength (deterrence) Deterrence- Threatening a harmful response to prevent someone from doing something Threat- if, then (if you have to execute the threat) Harmful- Impose Cost Prevent- Retain status quo |
|
|
Elements of Deterrence Theory |
Threat of retaliation- Focus on affecting willingness to fight Denial-strong defense- Focus on eliminating opportunity Purpose is to make war unattractive
|
|
|
Kinds of Deterrence Theory |
Direct vs Extended: Threat on own behalf vs. threat on behalf of friends and allies
General vs Immediate: Vague threat that breaches peace vs explicit threat where one side seriously considers attacking |
|
|
Conditions for Deterrence Success |
Challenger must be deterrable For all challengers : Acquiesce > Status Quo AND Status Quo > Capitulate Therefore: ACQ > CAP
Traditional Rational D Theory: Succeeds if meets following 3 conditions 1) Defenders threat is clearly communicated 2) Defender has military capabilities to carry out costly threat 3) Defender has to have willingness to carry out threat
ALL 3 TOGETHER MEANS THREAT IS CREDIBLE
|
|
|
Conditions for Deterrence Failure |
Non-deterrable Challenger War is most preferred or 2nd preferred outcome |
|
|
War in Iraq Facts |
Immediate cause= Failure to comply with UN inspections satisfactorily Deeper (real) cause= belief that Saddam cannot be deterred from using WMD and cannot be allowed to acquire WMD
|
|
|
Saddam Hussein Type |
Ruthless, Reckless, and not fully rational Too unpredictable to be prevented from threatening US OR SH is rogue type (and rational)
TRUE TYPE= Cruel and calculating but deterrable |
