Blog 4

 For this blog post, I wanted to further explore the question that I used in my last analytical essay: Is a world without nuclear weapons desirable?  In my essay, I concluded that a world without nuclear weapons is in fact desirable as it is impossible to remove the knowledge of their existence as an assembly, therefore a world without nuclear weapons cannot be undesirable, as it is impossible.  I also concluded that by removing these devices, it would only promote  their secret assembly and storage, which could lead to hostility and promote the misuse of nuclear power.  I felt like this question highlighted a lot of the problems that arise on an international scale and how difficult it is to implement global governance.  I think that this question also highlights how technological  developments can change how interactions between different nations occur and alter the way in  which nations act and react.  I feel like this question extends beyond nuclear power, as it shows the nuances that present themselves on an international scale with new developments.  What limitations do international governances have?  Are all nations held to the same standard under international governances? 

I feel like this topic mainly presents the issue of inequality; not all nations have the same knowledge and assets of others, and because of this will remain inherently unequal.  If an international governance was put into place to remove nuclear weapons entirely, it would really only deter poorer nations from developing and storing these devices, as wealthier nations would be able to pay the fines for possessing these devices and handle any additional consequences.  I wonder what other kinds of international governance would inadvertently allow for nations to be held to different standards, despite the intention being creating equality and accountability.  How can nations be held accountable when international powers are inherently unequal and there is no realistic way to combat this inequality.  Can an international superpower just do whatever they want with minimal consequences?  I question what can be done in the future to hold all nations to an equal standard, regardless of size, wealth, military power, and so on .


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

  Thomas White     Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD, is typically taught as law and inherent to global politics. Often, the theory is misconstrued, something that I myself never fully understood. It is not just that the world will be destroyed if there is another nuclear war; a nuclear war cannot happen due to the resulting chaos. This is typically not emphasized when discussing this theory, as the view gives the impression that the destruction is more key, not the actual peace that results from it. In some ways, this is dangerous, as it misconstrues how people view this idea, and it clouds what should be asked; does the atomic weapon protects us all?     MAD is typically seen in many global theories and politics as an inherent truth, but some believe it should not be considered a fact. There has only been one true international affair that the concept of MAD has acted in, which was the Cold War. There was peace in their states, created by both the USSR and the USA having nuclear w
Read more

Terrorism

  Thomas White Professor Shirk International Politics 11-29-2021 Personal Experience with Terrorism     Terrorism is the greatest threat to immediate security in the 21st century. Defined by the FBI as two different concepts, there is both international and domestic terrorism. In class, international terrorism was obviously discussed more, and that is something that most in the US think less about, both because it less often affects their daily lives and also because the US government does not want to draw attention to actions they take that may be considered international terrorism. Domestic terrorism will be the topic of this Blog Post, both my personal experience with it and how a community can deal with its aftermath.     Terrorism is a concept that is impossible to fully understand until it affects you or someone in your community. Oftentimes, the media creates a narrative of sympathy for victims instead of empathy, where individuals are meant to feel bad for the victims of the t
Read more

Cybersecurity/Warfare

  Thomas White The New Technological Age of Warfare     Throughout this course, warfare was one of the most consequential and influential factors within the International system. As we learned, there’s an entire system of viewing international politics that says war is the most fundamental interaction between states or governmental bodies. This concept, known as realism, is one that I have previously discussed in a blog post, where I attempted to prove why it is an incorrect viewpoint for the 21st century. I discussed how in the modern age there is too much interaction between states that is not driven by war or seeking power. However, this post is meant to be an exercise in arguing the other side and in an atypical lens. Today, as social media has been skyrocketing to unprecedented and previously unimaginable heights, warfare has taken what may be a new look. Two examples of this are TikTok and the Russian SolarWinds hack on the US, both of which are different scenarios with different
Read more