Deterrence and compellence complement each other within
international relations both prior to wars and as a result of wars.
North Korea even though many other
nations also have nuclear weapons whenever Kim Jong Un makes a bomb threat all
other nations are cautious just in case he is actually serious. Often because
United States is a great power we are urged to help as well as China because
not only is it also considered a great power but it’s also physically closer to
North Korea. China is also North Korea’s main and possibly only trade partner.
Therefore, if North Korea were to not comply China could call off trade with
them just as United States did with Japan as a method to prevent further war
crimes Japan was inflicting on their neighbor countries, Korea, China etc.
However, this can go either two ways North Korea actually comply with China’s
demand and have their trade partner or North Korea would declare war on China
and use its nuclear weapons or possibly attempt to invade China and loot for
the natural resources they need. Neither possibility would be in either's interest no matter how strong Kim Jong Un's reputation for being crazy is.
After
World War I Germany was left to pay the debt and was forced to demilitarize
through the Treaty of Versailles due to the many war crimes as well as essentially
starting the First World War. The United Nations used compellence through the
Treaty of Versailles forcing Germany to demilitarize and was unsuccessful
resulting in the Second World War.
The United States bombing of Hiroshima
but mainly Nagasaki possibly had two agendas, in an attempt to prevent
further war crimes from Imperial Japan against its neighboring countries the
United States broke trade with Japan as a warning. Then after the Pearl Harbor
the second strike capability comes into play, as a result United States
responded by bombing both Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the same motive in mind
but also possibly to deter the Soviet Union from trying to spread communism to
Cuba by showing what the United States was capable of developing and the
destruction that these atomic bombs could do. If both of these “theories” are
true then it was only partially successful since Japan is no longer occupying
its’ neighboring countries however Cuba is communist.
Deterrence is evident in the prisoner’s
dilemma the interrogators already have information on the prisoners and because
the prisoners are not interrogated in the same room. The prisoners already know
their hand are tied prior to the interrogation but another factor that strongly
influence their choice to cooperate with the police or remain silent is the
fact that choosing to cooperate with the police officers can result in that
person getting no jail time assuming their partner or partners remain silent.
Because of this incentive and keeping in mind that their hands are already tied
this leads to them both or all “snitching” which is ultimately the police
officers’ goal. If both of the prisoners
choose to cooperate with the police officers results in mutually assured
destruction.
- MAD Lecture Professor Shirk
- Game Theory Lecture Professor Shirk
I find your beliefs of compliance vs deterrence to be compelling. However, I feel that you can easily make the argument that the countries involved in these situations used the inverse reasoning for the decisions. For example, you argued that the U.S. compelled Germany to follow rules after WWII, but some might say that the sanctions deterred them from doing harm again. I think that each side can be argued well, where valid points can be seen on both sides. There is no right answer, but it is interesting to see how an alternative view would be.
ReplyDeleteI like your classification of the two strategies as "complements." A bit similar to what Tim said, I think there are some problems with gathering empirical evidence to support the effectiveness of each theory. For example, when you mention the ineffectiveness of the atomic bomb to stop the spread of Communism, you are right that there are still Communist nations today. However, I think we need to account for the possibility that had WWII continued if the bomb was not dropped (there is debate as to whether or not it would have) the Soviet Union could have significantly expanded their influence in Asia. My point is that it is very difficult to say what "would" or "could" have happened if deterrence or compellence were not used.
ReplyDelete