Power

1
Power

• power in relational terms ...the ability of one
  state to make another continue a course of
  action, change what it is doing, or refrain from
  acting.
• power potential the relative capabilities or
  resources that a state needs to assert its
  influence over others

• But in todays interconnected, globalized world
• decreased utility of military power
• increased importance of technology, education,
  and trade competitiveness
• opportunity costs guns vs. butter
• soft power vs. hard power

2
Who spends most? Do they have similar levels of
human security? Who spends least? Do they have
similar levels of human security?
3
Trends in Military Spending
4

• spurred by the Cold War arms race, but it didnt
  end when the Cold War did
• Global South as primary market - Middle East and
  Asia are major recipients
• United States is leading supplier, heavily
  influenced by the lobby of the military-industrial
  complex

5
Nuclear Weapons

• The nuclear club eight countries with nuclear
  capability in 2006, with 20 other states seeking
  nuclear capability.
• Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) seeks to
  prevent the spread of nuclear weapons by
  prohibiting further sales, acquisition, or
  production.

6

• Limited Proliferation

• Widespread Proliferation

Non-Proliferation

• nuclear weapons created stability the long
  peace
• Countries only start wars they think they can win
  (benefits exceed the costs) and theres no way
  anyone wins a war where nukes are involved
• let responsible, democratic countries have nukes
  and not only will they not go to war themselves,
  no one will be anxious to go to war against them
  either

• let everyone have nukes and MAD will take care of
  maintaining peace, especially once all the
  alliances come into play and many nuclear powers
  are involved
• Theres no such thing as a limited nuclear war in
  todays world, so no one will want war because
  they all stand to lose more than they gain
• assumes rational leaders looking out for the best
  interests of their state.

• just because we had nuclear weapons and relative
  peace during the Cold War doesnt necessarily
  mean we had peace because of nuclear weapons
• just because no one has used their nukes in war
  since the 1st time in 1945 doesnt mean no one
  will use them again

7
Biological/Chemical Weapons

• The manufacture, stockpiling, and use of either
  is prohibited by international law
• the poor mans atomic bomb
• Several states have them or are so suspected
  large terrorist organizations have them
• States want them because they can serve as
  deterrents and also enhance power
• Can we stop them from getting them?

8
Weapons Technology

• MIRVs multiple independently targeted reentry
  vehicles (can carry up to 10 warheads at once)
• smart bombs precision-guided, bonb searches for
  its target detonates at the preceise time it
  can do the most damage
• non-lethal weapons incapacitate people,
  vehicles, communications systems
• Despite the existence of these weapons, no one
  really uses them because of the firebreak
  psychological divide between conventional
  nuclear warfare what happens if that divide is
  crossed?

9
The Security Dilemma

• each partys power increments are matched by the
  others, and all wind up with no more security
  than when the vicious cycle began, along with the
  costs incurred in having acquired and having to
  maintain their power
• spiral model ongoing, escalating arms race

10
Nuclear Deterrence Compellence 1945-1962

• compellence coercive diplomacy usually involving
  an act of war or threat of force to make the
  enemy do what you want out of fear - It works
  when you have the most power
• brinkmanship threaten adversaries with nuclear
  war compel submission cornerstone of the Cold
  War containment policy
• Example Cuban Missile Crisis
• Massive retaliation respond to any act of
  aggression with the most destructive capabilities
  available
• Countervalue targeting strategy aiming weapons
  at the civilians

11
Mutual Deterrence, 1962-1991

• Strategy to dissuade an adversary from doing what
  it would otherwise do
• Only works if you have capabilities, credibility
  communication
• requires second-strike capability
• mutually assured destruction (MAD) will prevent
  war from actually happening
• nuclear utilization theory (NUTs) nuclear
  weapons could be used in a limited war
• Strategic Defense Initiative Star Wars

12
Nuclear Deterrence post-Cold War

• decreased number of warheads less than 30,000 in
  2002
• change in strategic balance of power - pax
  atomica? nuclear weapons helped preserve peace
• Preemption a quick first-strike attack that
  seeks to defeat an adversary before it can
  organize a retaliatory response
• Part of G.W. Bush administration to combat
  terrorism (most sweeping reformulation of US
  strategic thinking in 50 years)
• Critics say it is preventive war war
  undertaken to preclude an adversary from
  acquiring the capability to attack sometime in
  the future (based on suspicion rather than
  credible threat). This one is illegal sets a
  dangerous precedent

13
Coercive Diplomacy

• use of threats or limited armed force to
  persuade an adversary to alter its foreign and/or
  domestic policies
• military intervention overt or covert

• Conditions Favoring The Use Of Coercive Diplomacy
  
• clarity of user objectives
• asymmetry of motivation favoring the user
• opponents fear of escalation and belief in the
  urgency for compliance
• adequate domestic and international support for
  the user
• clarity on the precise terms of settlement

14

• Types of Economic Sanctions

• Policy Goals of Economic Sanctions

• withholding foreign aid
• tariffs
• quotas
• boycotts
• embargos
• freezing assets

• Compliance
• Subversion
• Deterrence
• International Symbolism
• Domestic Symbolism

• Problems with Economic Sanctions
• The response in the sanctioned society is
  heightened nationalism.
• They sometimes hurt the disempowered people they
  seek to help.
• Some governments often act covertly to support
  the sanctioned state.
• They interfere with liberal free trade and
  therefore profits.
• The credibility of the state(s) imposing
  sanctions is often low.
• Unilateral sanctions rarely succeed.