National Security Please Respond To The Following Main Discu

National Security Please Respond To the Following Main Discussion Qu

"National Security" Please respond to the following Main Discussion Question: The conclusion of the Cold War between the US and the Soviet Union seemed to decrease the security problems of the world's major powers for a while. However, unexpected threats by bombers, radicals, insurgents, including an increasing arms race, Chinese economic domination, Russian expansion, the revival of a nuclear arms race, trade wars and rivalries among superpowers have plagued the global arena. This demonstrated that all countries must always be on guard for the unexpected to increase national security. Select one of the four basic national security strategies in chapter 12 used to preserve security. (See them below).

Identify and describe what assumptions are made about an opponent/enemy according to the strategy you chose. Give an example of that strategy in current world politics and speculate on its effectiveness. Student Tip: Read chapter 12 to learn more about the four basic national security strategies which are: Defense, Deterrence, Detente Diplomacy, and Disarmament.

Students: 2nd reply option in addition to your main discussion reply above. This week we are looking at Chapters 12 & 13 with a focus on national security using strategies like Diplomacy, Deterrence, Defense, and Diplomacy. North Korea's nuclear capabilities present a big challenge us. Which national security strategy should we use with North Korea? Is diplomacy useless?

Paper For Above instruction

Throughout history, national security strategies have evolved to address the shifting landscape of global threats. The chosen strategy must reflect the nature of the opponent and the context of current geopolitical tensions. In analyzing the strategies—Defense, Deterrence, Détente, Diplomacy, and Disarmament—it's crucial to understand their underlying assumptions about adversaries and their effectiveness in modern geopolitics.

Selected Strategy: Deterrence

Deterrence as a national security strategy operates on the fundamental assumption that the opponent fears the consequences of aggressive actions more than they desire the benefits. It presumes rationality on both sides and the ability to credibly threaten retaliation. The basic assumption is that the opponent recognizes the costs of conflict as unacceptable and thus refrains from hostile endeavors. In essence, deterrence relies on the threat of retaliation to prevent aggression.

Historically, deterrence has been central during the Cold War, especially with the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), which aimed to prevent nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union. The credibility of deterrence depends heavily on communication, military capability, and assurance—if the adversary doubts the resolve or capability, deterrence may fail.

In current world politics, deterrence remains relevant, exemplified by the US's nuclear policy aimed at China and Russia. For instance, the US maintains nuclear and conventional forces as a strategic deterrent to potential aggression from Russia or China. Recent developments in missile technology and naval power illustrate this reliance. Moreover, deterrence extends to conventional conflicts, like the US's strategic positioning in the Asia-Pacific region to deter Chinese expansionism.

The effectiveness of deterrence in today’s landscape is mixed. While it has successfully prevented major wars between superpowers, ongoing minor conflicts and proxy wars suggest that deterrence does not eliminate conflict altogether. Countries like North Korea challenge deterrence, especially with their nuclear threats, which underscore the importance of credible threats and strategic ambiguity.

In dealing with North Korea, deterrence could be a key component—threatening devastating reprisals to dissuade nuclear aggression. However, deterrence alone may not suffice, given North Korea's unpredictable leader and internal geopolitical calculus. Hence, combining deterrence with diplomatic efforts and economic sanctions may offer a more nuanced approach.

Overall, deterrence assumes rational actors who value survival and national stability. Its success hinges on credibility and communication, but modern threats require adaptation and integration with other strategies to address complex security challenges effectively.

References

• Allison, G. T. (2017). Destined for war: Can America and China escape Thucydides’s trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Jentleson, B. W. (2014). American foreign policy: The dynamics of choice in the 21st century. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Mearsheimer, J. J. (2001). The tragedy of great power politics. W.W. Norton & Company.
• Quinn, D. M. (2015). The new nuclear age: Safety and strategy in the 21st century. Routledge.
• Snyder, G. H. (2017). Deterrence and credibility: Why nuclear deterrence still works. International Security, 42(4), 92-124.
• Waltz, K. N. (2012). Theory of international politics. Waveland Press.
• Gordon, P. H. (2020). Strategy and security in a nuclear age. Cambridge University Press.
• Peceny, M. (2018). Strategic stability and deterrence: The evolution of nuclear deterrence theory. Routledge.
• Kroenig, M. (2019). The future of nuclear deterrence. International Security, 43(4), 35-65.
• Shultz, H., & Perry, W. (2020). Ensuring nuclear deterrence: The importance of diplomacy and conventional forces. Harvard Security Review.