Avatar for amix 26 сентября 2003
amix сотрудник

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[quote]Week 2: Lecture 2-3 (Due Monday, September 29, 12:00 midnight, Moscow Time)

Please answer only ONE of the following questions:

  1. Explain the main differences between defense and deterrence policy. With the end of the Cold War, which policy, in your opinion, should countries pursue to best ensure their security? Why?

2. In your opinion, has the regime of arms control treaties been successful in reducing the likelihood of nuclear war, or has it been powerless to prevent vertical as well as horizontal proliferation? Use evidence from the readings and lecture to support your answer.

(Source: http://www.leland-stanford.ru/IDL/101/assignments.html) /quote
...So let's start, ok?
Firstly we should decide which question we're going to work out... any ideas?

#
Avatar for victoria спустя 3 дня (29 сентября 2003)
victoria

well... next time we'll try to make it more organized, ok?
:)
And btw, do you know what can I do about my  stanford CDs?

#
Avatar for amix спустя 2 часа (29 сентября 2003)
amix сотрудник

...ok, i hope

...uh, if only i knew. i don't think the lectures may run perfectly under Windows XP but fail under Windows Me, for instance. Or that they may require some ultramodern PC. i just have no idea about what could cause such a problem because they use light and tranparent cross-platform software to build the course CDs.
what exactly happens when you try to launch all the stuff?

#
Avatar for victoria спустя 5 дней (4 октября 2003)
victoria

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

and about CDs.. When I insert a CD and it starts loading, real player opens, suddenly everything stops and that's it .

I don't really know what's the matter.. I'll have to go to the computer class.

#
Avatar for amix спустя 3 дня (7 октября 2003)
amix сотрудник

[size=4]OUR ESSAY FOR THIS WEEK:/size
[quote]The essay on the question 1:
To decide which policy is better for states to conduct after the Cold war finished, we’d like to compare main characteristics of them.
The main differences between defence and deterrence policy are:

Defence policy Deterrence policy
1. Country has to increase constantly the quantity and the quality of weapon in order to be competitive with another mature nuclear power.
2. Defence policy exists when there is no military balance in the world. When the US already had mature power and another countries were not so good equipped, they were trying to catch the USA up for being more secure.
3. There’s no collaboration between countries, the owners of nuclear weapon are in the situation of covered permanent war. There is no dialog between actors, it’s difficult to pursue a peaceful policy and to conclude mutual treaties. 1. “The only reason to have nuclear weapons is to deter their use by another nuclear-armed state”(Coit D. Blacker, the lecture), so there is no such necessity for weapon rush as when the state conduct defence policy.
2. Mutually Assured Destruction, both sides have mature power, they are able to survive a first strike. (“second strike capability”).
“Stability is based on the fact that both sides are vulnerable, i.e. there is no possibility to defend against retaliation following attack”. (Coit D. Blacker, the lecture). 3. Deterrence policy supposes to lead the arms control treaties in order to find some new issues of common existence.

As far as historical issues are concerned, “during the Cold war the world was bipolar, security problems were solved within the framework of open, strict, uncompromising confrontation between two grate powers… The crucial role in guaranteeing international security belonged to military forces and nuclear weapons”. ( Bobirev B.“Nuclear weapons and the state security” http://www.nasledie.ru). The collapse of USSR, appearance of the new countries who created nuclear weapon (India, Pakistan, North Korea) and activity of non-state actors (such as Al Qaeda, religious group Taliban) the technical revolution changed international relations. New world order makes defence policy inefficient.

The idea that Brodie expressed was that of nuclear deterrence: “nuclear weapons should serve the purpose to prevent their use. Nuclear deterrence is the threat to retaliate with nuclear weapons. In general, deterrence refers to the attempt to create risks that lead the opponent to not engage in a certain policy or action. For deterrence to work the risk must be disproportionately higher than any possible gain”. (Nuclear Deterrence. http// www.nuclearfiles.org).

Defence policy is led when the state “feels” unsafe, vulnerable and might be endanger of a first strike. Nowadays in a situation of “war on terrorism’, sometime concrete adversary could be unknown, or this adversary is inside your state. There is no use in expensive weapon rush, it could lead to the world war. Taking into account magnitude, certainty and swiftness of destruction any defence became impossible. We should search for new solutions of the problem, not military.

But even deterrence policy sometimes isn’t enough. For organizations such as Al Qaeda their dispersed membership across different countries, a lot of followers and money supplies makes it extremely difficult to carry out a massive retaliatory act (including nuclear) specifically targeted at them and their leaders. Such a tactical advantage give them an opportunity for such organizations “to carry out their heinous deeds. The presence of nuclear weapons with the U.S. did not deter the Al Qaeda from carrying out the September 11 attack. If the Al Qaeda or the Taliban had access and means to use nuclear weapons, would they have desisted from using them after rationally calculating the consequences? The answer is definite NO”. (The fallacy of nuclear deterrence http://www.hindu.com) But, probably, in this century the world wouldn’t be able to refuse from the nuclear weapon, to eliminate its supplies of arms. Anyway, looking through the last decades, we see: deterrence, peacekeeping, conclusion of international treaties on limitation their arms supplies - this policy is more efficient and benign in the nuclear world than the policy of defence. As for Russia, Arbatov A.G. correctly noticed: “Maintaining close interactions between Russia and NATO in the sphere of disarmament will considerably reduce the sharpness of strategic problems of our country both on the West and on the East”. (Arbatov A.G. “Counting on the nuclear power”, attached materials).

Arbatov A.G. “Counting on the nuclear power”, attached materials.
Bobirev B.“Nuclear weapons and the state security”. http://www.nasledie.ru. On this site there is a forum, articles conserning all spheres of life in Russia.
Coit D. Blacker, lecture #2.
Nuclear Deterrence. http// www.nuclearfiles.org. It is discussed the problem of nuclear weapon.
The fallacy of nuclear deterrence. http://www.hindu.com. Online edition of India's National Newspaper. /quote

#
Avatar for amix спустя 1 минуту (7 октября 2003)
amix сотрудник

. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
[size=4]MALNAY's COMMENTS:/size

(taken from Stanford IDL forum)

[quote]HI,

MY NAME IS BARNABAS MALNAY AND I WILL BE THE TEACHING ASSISTANT FOR IDL101 FOR YOUR GROUP. I HOPE YOU WILL FIND THIS COURSE USEFUL AND INTERESTING.

YOUR FIRST PAPER HAS STRENGTHS AS WELL AS WEAKNESSES. ITS MAIN STRENGTHS ARE THAT (i) IT HAS A CLEAR STRUCTURE, (ii) IT IS WELL-RESEARCHED, AND (iii) YOU USE PROPER CITATION, THAT IS, YOU GIVE CREDIT TO THE SOURCES THAT YOU USE. THESE ARE ALL IMPORTANT MATTERS. THE MAIN WEAKNESS OF THE PAPER IS THAT ITS BASIC ARGUMENT IS RATHER VAGUE. YOU SEEM TO BE HOLDING THE VIEW THAT DEFENSE IS ESSENTIALLY INEFFECTIVE IN THE «NEW WORLD ORDER,» MARKED BY THE COLLAPSE OF THE S.U., THE APPEARANCE OF NEW NUCLEAR POWERS, AND THE EMERGENCE OF CONSEQUENTIAL NON-STATE ACTORS (YOU ARGUE THIS IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH AFTER THE COMPARISON TABLE). BUT YOU NEVER EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK SO, WHEREAS SUCH AN EXPLANATION WOULD BE NEEDED SINCE THE CONVENTIONAL VIEW IS JUST THE OPPOSITE: NAMELY, THAT IT'S DETERRENCE — AND NOT DEFENSE — THAT DOESN'T WORK IN THE POST-COLD WAR PERIOD. SO IT WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPORTANT TO SEE WHY YOU THINK THE NEW WORLD ORDER HAS MADE DEFENSE INEFFECTIVE.

THEN, AFTER A PARAGRAPH ON DETERRENCE, YOUR ARGUMENT BECOMES EXTREMELY SHAKY AS IT STARTS TO MIX TOGETHER THE ISSUES OF COMPETITIVE ARMAMENT OF MATURE NUCLEAR POWERS AND THE ASSYMETRICAL «WAR ON TERRORISM.» IN SHORT, YOUR THIRD PARAGRAPH AFTER YOUR COMPARISON TABLE IS HIGHLY CONFUSING.

FINALLY YOU RESOLVE THE QUESTION BY SAYING THAT THOUGH DETERRENCE CANNOT WORK, EITHER, «LOOKING THROUGH THE LAST DECADES [...] DETERRENCE [...] IS MORE EFFICIENT AND BENIGN [...] THAN THE POLICY OF DEFENSE.» BUT DIDN'T YOU JUST ARGUE THAT THERE IS A TOTALLY NEW WORLD ORDER AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF THE S.U.? SO WHAT IS THE RELEVANCE OF THE LAST DECADES? YOU SHOULD HAVE EXPLAINED.

TO DO BETTER IN FUTURE ASSIGNMENTS, I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND TO YOU TO ALWAYS TAKE A FEW MINUTES AND SUMMARIZE YOUR BASIC ARGUMENT AS PRECISELY AND THOROUGHLY AS YOU CAN IN TWO OR THREE SENTENCES, AND MAKE THIS SUMMARY INTO THE INTRODUCTION OF YOUR PAPER. THIS WAY YOU'LL FORCE YOURSELF TO HAVE A CLEAR AND COHERENT ARGUMENT.

GRADE RANGE: THIS PAPER IS RIGHT ON THE BORDER BETWEEN THE 70-80 RANGE AND THE 80-90 RANGE, SO I GIVE IT AN 80, WHICH IS TO BE UNDERSTOOD AS A «BORDER GRADE,» SOMETHING LIKE 3/4 WOULD BE IN THE RUSSIAN SYSTEM./quoteNot bad for beginning ;)
Now see next topic, Week 3.

Авторизуйтесь или зарегистрируйтесь, чтобы участвовать в дискуссиях.