Suchergebnisse

Professor Harknett argues that the Bush administration has incorrectly labeled the security threat facing the nation as terrorism. The threat is actually barbarism, which implies an effort to destroy as an end itself rather than as a means to pursue political objectives. Traditional models of deterrence and defense are insufficient for dealing with barbarism. The new threats suggest the use of tactics that are not purely defensive, but preventive and preemptive. As U.S. policymakers pursue such tactics they should recognize that traditional perspectives that separate domestic and international domains are ill-suited to a threat that undermines a world and regional system to which the United States is central.

Professor Harknett argues that the Bush administration has incorrectly labeled the security threat facing the nation as terrorism. The threat is actually barbarism, which implies an effort to destroy as an end itself rather than as a means to pursue political objectives. Traditional models of deterrence and defense are insufficient for dealing with barbarism. The new threats suggest the use of tactics that are not purely defensive, but preventive and preemptive. As U.S. policymakers pursue such tactics they should recognize that traditional perspectives that separate domestic and international domains are ill-suited to a threat that undermines a world and regional system to which the United States is central. Adapted from the source document.

Argues current US security threats should be labeled as barbarism, an effort to destroy a system, and not terrorism, violence for intimidation or coercion; preventive and preemptive tactics are the appropriate security strategies; focuses on Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

The effects of the US's decision to deploy a national missile defense system on arms escalation & crisis stability within the international community are studied. Analyses are conducted of the impact of the US's installation of a missile defense program on crisis stability & arms escalation in nations without missile defenses; with limited, moderate, & unregulated missile defenses; & among allied nations. For example, it is stated that creating a missile defense system will reduce crisis stability & increase arms stockpiling in nations with unregulated national missile defenses. Although deterring other nations from launching ballistic missile attacks remains a central component of US foreign policy, it is claimed that the deployment of a national missile defense system would ambiguously affect the efficacy of deterrence policy. It is suggested that establishing a national missile defense system would damage the US's strategic position as world superpower over time. J. W. Parker