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;
33 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Describes two Hawkish Biases. Are they manipulable? |
Positive Illusions: when two opponents are both overly optimistic creating a scenario in which both attempt to be aggressive and pursue war even when victory is not likely. Loss Aversion: When a loss ways more heavily on a country than a win so a nation prolongs war even when victory is unlikely. |
|
|
2.) What does Jervis argue--are beliefs powerful and autonomous causes of behavior or are they ex post rationalizations for behavior? |
Jervis believes that beliefs are powerful and cause behavior. Beliefs are hard to analyze because preconceived notions are more unchangeable that it is hard for one to accept new information. |
|
|
3.) Name and explain some difficult even sometimes intractable problems about studying beliefs. |
It can be hard in part due to the fact that beliefs can be sincere and even rational while still being "wrong". Also, Beliefs can be "half beliefs" that are based on unspoken assumptions that are not known by all parties in a conflict. |
|
|
4.) Discuss the difference between defensive uses of coercive diplomacy and offensive uses of coercive diplomacy. Where does deterrence fit? Why does Alexander George make these distinctions? |
Coercive Diplomacy: Diplomacy based off the threat of military action. Offensive Coercion: Blackmailing essentially. Trying to threaten to be offensive without resistance from peers. Defensive Coercion: The threat of military force against a already aggressive state. Not deterrence. Deterrence is a safeguard in case a state goes rougue where defensive coercion is a defense mechanism against a already crappy state. |
|
|
Difference between Ultimatum and Tacit Ultimatum.
|
Ultimatum: Choice left to opponent with specific threats to be executed at a certain time. Tacit Ultimatum: Often no specific time limit and force is not threatened but shown via other military actions. build up what have you. |
|
|
6.) "According to the logic of the abstract model of coercive diplomacy, it is more likely to be successful if the objective selected--and the demand made--by the coercing power reflects only the most important of its interests." Why? |
Because an asymmetry in demands makes it harder for the defender to agree to the aggressors demands. If you ask for too much people will balance your ass. |
|
|
xx8.) How was American manhood connected to war in the late 1800's? Discuss. In other words--how was American “manhood” a national security issue in the late 1800’s? In other words, briefly describe how “gender convictions” define the contours of U.S. political cultural at that time, strongly impacting U.S. foreign policy. |
Basically its a manipulable cause of war because what caused this Manhood phenomina was the presence of a machisimo/violent/patriarchal world view propagated at the time. |
|
|
2.) What is "Balance-of-Power" theory and what does it predict for military doctrines? Why?
|
Balance of power theory is hella old. More secure one state is the less another is. They think that an aggressive state will seem less appealing as long as one state is not stronger than all other states. As long as bandwagoning and balancing are possible it should seem less attractive. |
|
|
3.) John Owen explains what the "Democratic Peace" is, and proposes a theoretical explanation for this quantitative finding of "peace among Democracies." What is the "Democratic Peace"? Are democracies more peaceful than non-democracies? |
Democratic peace thoery is the idea that democratic and westernized nations are less likely to go to war with one another because of their shared ideals. Closest theory to a LAW that we have. Most of the time has been true. The theory states that there are little to no differences between democracies, this is arguable. |
|
|
5.) What is the importance of perceptions for the democratic peace, according to Owen? |
because if a democratic state percieves another state as democratic than it will be more likely to be sympathetic towards their plight. |
|
|
6.) How does Layne argue that the Democratic Peace is a Myth? List and explain his best arguments. |
Because the case studies are few and far between and he also claims that there have been near misses in the past. |
|
|
8.) How does democratization cause war? What evidence is there to support this argument? |
During times of transtion to democracies, though states don't fight other democracies they become more dangerous and war prone. Arab spring is an example of this. Basically people fight internal wars over the new found power. |
|
|
explain the different types of Realism: |
Type 1: States seek as much power as possible because human nature Type 2: States seek as much power as possible because of the anarchic international order. Type 3: Fine Grained Structural Realism. This is about the anarchic structure but really based on Offense-Defense Theory. THINK YOUR PAPER type 4: Misperceived Fine Grained Realism. Basically its due to the misperceptions about first strike advantage, the cumulativity of resources, and the offense defense balance. |
|
|
2.) Is war more likely when conquest is easy? Explain at least three of the hypotheses Van Evera offers for arguing how war is more likely when conquest is easy, i.e. explaining the power of offense-defense theory. |
WAR IS MORE LIKELY WHEN CONQUEST IS EASY. Aggressors win more decisively thus there is a first strike advantage. Cumulativity of resources, suggesting that its not just the battlefield that counts, need all the chips. Windows of opportunity, better to win some that to loose all. THREE MAIN THEORIES: opportunistic expansion, if won easily other states are too weak to retaliate. Less cooperation. No trust. Arms Races. This increases when world is more towards |
|
|
force is fungible |
it essentially means that military power or power of anytype can be peaceful or militaristic. Wealth is most fungible, Political skill is second and Military power is 3rd. |
|
|
7.) According to Jervis,(~ p.62), decision makers beliefs about nuclear weapons are very important. Jervis argues: "If most American spokesmen were to take the position that a secure second-strike capability was sufficient and that increments over that (short of a first-strike capability) would only be a waste of money .... Although the Russians stress war-fighting ability... [this type of argument could be countered ....] by an American assertion that this is nonsense." What is Jervis arguing? Fully explain and discuss. |
Basically where Russia might want to build up out of a percieved necessity, the U.S. finds it to be a waste of resources. Can be percieved as offensive at times. |
|
|
8.) According to Betts--what is the "Lost Logic of Deterrence"? How is the U.S. doing too much deterrence with Russia? How is the U.S. not relying on deterrence enough with Iran? How is the U.S. practicing "ambivalent deterrence" with China? What are the dangers and what are the solutions? Why does Washington finess the issues? |
Basically deterrence doesn't work that well because everyone has nukes so it doesn't do a very good job of containing countries. It only does a good job at containing the possiblity of nuclear war. |
|
|
9.) Jervis argues that even if all states are satisfied with the status quo, anarchy can make it difficult for all to arrive at goals that they recognize are in their common interest. He discusses Rousseau's "Stag Hunt." Is going to zero nuclear weapons similar to a "Stag Hunt." How yes? How no? Discuss. |
The basic idea here is that if everyone cooperates they all do good. If not then they all get nothing. But if one state can't trust another they wont participate in a cooperative endeavor. The stag hunt is a metaphor. With regards to nukes: If all hunters catch stag (disarm) then they all win. If all hunters but one try to catch stag and that one goes after a rabbit than they all loose (one state keeps high arms) |
|
|
3 sources of misperceptions: Opacitiy, Psychological, and domestic politics. |
Opacity: so basically the world is opaque and no one knows anyones intentions so everyone is suspicious. Domestic Politics:Nationalism, Militarism, economy. Psychological: Attributes their shortcomings to circumstances and others to their character. Thinking past conflicts are exactly the same as present |
|
|
3.) What is the imperial myth of “paper tiger enemies”? Fully explain, and give examples that you explain. |
Paper Tiger Enemies are enemies that seem strong when appeased but when under threat or attack crumble. |
|
|
4.)What is the imperial myth of “big stick diplomacy”? Fully explain, and give examples that you explain. |
When a state speaks of peace but everyone knows they are willing and able to use force to coerce nations into doing what they want. |
|
|
7.) Jervis offers a list of "Hypotheses on Misperception." Explain two of his hypotheses and how states may be prone to these misperceptions. |
1. Decision makers failed to conform their old theories to the new information being presented to them, creating a misperception. 2.) Tendency for decision makers to see other states as more hostile than they actually are. |
|
|
9.) John Mueller offers an Organization Theory-type explanation for why and how the terrorist threat was hugely inflated in the United States after 9/11. Explain his argument and how it is an organization theory argument. |
If org's goal is to expand, then an attack like 911 uses the opportunity to expand as much as it wants. |
|
|
7.) Explain one of the historical controversies surrounding a key event of the July crisis and how the interpretation of that event determines our understanding of the war. |
One controversy is when Germany outwardly looked like they were open to mediation and conversations of peace while telling Austria Hungary that they should attack. |
|
|
2.)Where did “Nazism” come from? Was it the same as Italian fascism? Discuss Nazism--origins and nature. |
Germans adopted Nazi IDEAS BEFORE THE NAZIS. Offense is easy, if we attack bandwagoning will happen |
|
|
4.) Explain Hitler’s “aims”? Were they clear? What historical controversies are there about Hitler's aims? |
Wanted to make germany great again. Wanted to acquire Lebensraum. Wanted to unite German Speakers. Wanted to abolish both the treaty of Versailles and Communism. |
|
|
6.) Generalissimo of the Allied Armies in France in 1918, Marshal Foch, said of the Treaty of Versailles, "This is not peace. It is an armistice for twenty years." How was World War II the second part of a Thirty Y.ears War? |
Between world war 1 and 2 there were conflicts. Thought of as an extension of world war two. Basically the problems had not been fixed. |
|
|
Long and short term causes of WW1 |
Long term: expansionist ideas, industrialization, nationalism, cult of the offensive. Short Term: Assination of Franz Ferdinand, Declarations of war on Serbia and Russia from Austria Hungary and Germany respectively. |
|
|
3.) The Japanese Army had convinced the Japanese people of some views of the democratic states that helped lead to war--discuss these views. |
They painted americans as Soulless and Materialistic. They were portrayed as Paper Tigers. Britain was also blamed for the stalemate in China |
|
|
4.) Describe and discuss the internal security laws instituted in Japan that helped to cause the Pacific War. How did the government institute education for national conformity? How was militarism taught in the schools? Discuss. |
Schools were called National Schools and militarism was promoted heavily. |
|
|
5.) What "Myths of empire" are relevant to the Pacific War? Explain. |
Expansion=security. This is simply not the case. First Strike is not always beneficial. |
|
|
1.) What happened in the Cuban Missile Crisis? Why was it important? Discuss. |
Soviet gave missiles to cuba since we had missiles in Turkey. This worried us and everyone got all hot and bothered. |
|
|
4.) What is a Grand Strategy of "Restraint"? |
The US is the watchdog and expands while everyone else band wagoning with us. |
