Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

DETTRENCE AND SECURITY (NUCLEAR DETRANCE (INDIA AND NUKE: (INDIA NUKE TEST…

- - - - BUT IF IRRATIONAL THAN DETRRANCE HAS NO USE
        LIKE PAKISTAN REGARDED AS MAD CHILD WITH LOADED GUN
        
        SO DETTRANCE HERE WILL NOT WORK BUT PERSUASION (ECONOMIC FAVOUR) WILL
    - - DETRRANCE :A HARD POWER
  - - - DETERRANCE BY PUNISHMENT BASED DOCTRINE OF MUTAULLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION
      - MAD IMPLIES: MASSIVE RETAILAITION IN CASE OF NUKE ATTACK
        MASSIVE RETAILATION MEANS UNACCEEPTABLE DAMAGE TARGETTING CIVILIANS
    - - INITAILLY USA ADOPTED APPROACH OF MASSIVE RETAILAITION BUT LATER INCORPORATED FLEXIBE RESONSE MEANING USE OF TACTICAL WEAPNS
  - - - DEPENDS ON TWO FACTORS
        
        ABILITY TO COMMUINCATE CREDIBILTY OF DETERRANCE
        
        SECOND PARTY HAS TO BE RATIONAL
    - - NOT EFFECTIVE AGAINST SUCIDE BOMBERS, TERRORSIT ORG, ROUGUE STATES
      - ACC. TO NINA TAENONWALT:
        
        ROLE OF TABOO CAN'T BE NEGLECTED, A TABOO HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AGAINST NUKES
      - ALSO POST COLD WAR WORLD IS WORLD OF COMPLEX INTERDEPENDENCE.. SO THERE IS LIMITED SCOPE FOR HARD POWER
- - - - IDEALLY PAK SHOULD LEAD IN ATTACK , THAN INDIA ATTACKING WITH NUKE (IF NOT DECLARED AS NUKE WEAPON STATE) INDIA WOULD GAIN LEGITIMACY AS NUKE WEAPON STATE... BUT NOW INDIA HAVE LEGITIMISED PAK HAVING NUKE
      - ALSO INDIA'S NUKE DOCTRINE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DETER PAKISTAN .. RATHER PAK IS ABLE TO DETER INDIA INSPITE OF CONTINOUS TERRORIST ATTACKS INDIA IIS NOT ABLE TO LAUNCH A CONVENTIONAL WAR AGAINST PAKISTAN
    - - INDIA NUKE TEST LEGITIMISED PAK'S HAVING NUCLEAR BOMB
        
        NOW PAK NUKE MEANS SAUDI'S NUKE( AS THEY HAVE FINANCED IT ) THIS PROMPTED IRAN GOING FOR BUILDIING NUCLEAR CAPCITY
- - - - SECURITY SHOULDN'T BE CONCERN OF SINGLE STATE BUT COLLECTIVE CONCERN
    - - SIMILARITY
        
        GREATER POWER IS ANTIDOTE OF POWER
        
        BOTH CS AND BOP RECOGNISE RELEVANCE OF HARD POWER
      - DIFFRENCES:
        
        B.O.P IS ADHOC WHEREAS CS IS INSTITUTIONALISED VERSION OF BOP .. FOR CS A INTERNATIONAL ORG IS REQUIRED FOR OPERATIONALIZATION
        
        BOP WORKS ON REGIONAL LEVEL WHEREAS CS IS MORE UNIVERSAL IN NATURE
    - - COLLECTIVE SECURITY
        
        IS A TYPE OF ALLAINCE OR GROUPING WHERE STATE AGREE NOT TO ATTACK EACH OTHERS AND DEFEND FROM ATTACK OF ONE OF THE OTHERS
        FOR EG: UN
      - COLLECTIVE DEFENSE
        
        A ALLAINCE OR GROUPING WHERE STATES
        AGRRE TO DEFEND GROUP FROM OUTSIDE ATTACK
        FOR EG: NATO, WARSAW PACT
  - - - THERE WAS NO CLARITY HOW TO DETERMINE AGGRESSION
      - UNDER LON EVERY NATION HAD VETO POWER
      - USA NAD USSR BOTH ARE OUT OF LON
      - BRITAIN AND FRANCE CONSIDERED USSR A BIGGER THRRAT THAN GERMANY
      - DIFFRENTIAL TREAMENT IN SOME CASES: JAPAN'S ANS ITALY INVSIONS WHER OVERLOOKEDE
    - - UNSC WAS GIVEN AUTHORISED TO ENFORCE COLLECTIVE SECURITY PRINCIPLE..
        
        IT WAS THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE EASY TO COME UP CONCENSUS IN P5
      - HOWEVER BECAUSE OF EAST VS WEST CONFLICT COLLECTIVE SECURITY COULDN'T BE OPRATIONALISED
      - ONLY EG: OF COLLECTIVE SECURITY WAS IN KOREAN CRISIS IN 1950 WHERE UN AUTHORISED COLLECTIVE SECURITY .
        
        IT WAS POSSIBLE BECAUSE USSR WAS ABSENT IN RESOLUTION AT THE MOMENT... AT CAME BACK AND VETOED IT
      - ACHESON PLAN(UNITING FOR PEACE RESOLUTION OF UN)
        
        IF THERE IS A DEAD LOCK THAN UNGA 2/3RD MAJORITY CAN AUTHORISE COLLECTIVE SECURITY OPERATION
        
        USSR DIDN'T RECOGNISE ITS LEGALITY, AND USA LATTER USED THIS METHOD BECOZ OF PRO SOVIET MEMBER IN UNGA IN INITIAL YEARS
  - - - PEACEKEEPING: POLICE ACTION
        PERSONEL CAN USE ARMED FORCE ONLY FOR SELF DEFENSE
        DEPLOYED ONLY ON REQUEST OF THE COUNTRY
        DEFENSIVE ACTION
        THAT WHY WORE BLUE HELMET NOT KHAKI
      - COLLECTIVE SECURITY:
        
        MILITYARY ACTION
    - - PEACE KEEPING HAVE BECOME DIFFICULT
        
        PEACEKEEPING FORCES ATTACKED BY NON STATE ACTORS
        
        INCREASED NO. OF INTRASTATE CONFLICT
        
        WESTERN COUNTRIES PROPOSES ROBUST PEACEKEEPING: WELL EQUPPED WITH ARMS
        
        OTHER PROBS:
        
        WESTERN CONTIBUTE FUNDS.. DEVELPOING COUNTRIES PROVIDES PERSONEL
        
        DEVELOPING OUNTRIES ACCUSED OF CONSIDERING PEACE KEEPING AS MEANS OF EARNING EXCHANGE
        
        NO PROPER CONSULTATION B/W TROOP CONTRIBUTING COUNTRIES AND UNSC
        
        DEVELOPING COUNTRIES OPPOSE ROBUST PEACEKEEPING AS IT DILUTES LINE WITH MILITARY ACTION
  - - - PRESENT UNSC POLARISED B/W P3 AND P2
        
        BECOZ OF SYRIA IS FACING ONE OF MOST BRUTUAL CIVIL WAR
      - MORE INTRASTATE CONFLICTS
      - NEW GLOBAL THREATS LIKE TERRORISM AND CYBER SECURITY
- - - - PEOPLE IN SOUTH SUFFER FROM EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SECURITY
      - PEOPLE IN NORTH ARE NOW FACING THREATS OF INTERNAL SECURITY
    - - SECURITY OF STATE IS END AND MILITARY IS MEANS
    - - WHAT SECURITY OF MARKET: BUT PRESENT IT INA INTELLIGENT WAY.. PROJECT ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE AS A MEANS OF SECURITY OF STATE
      - MEANS FOR LIBERAL:
        
        ECONOMIC INTERDEPENDENCE
        
        REGIONAL INTEGRATION
        
        COLLECTIVE SECURITY
    - - ABOLISH TERRIOTRIAL BOUNDAIRES AND STRENGTHEN NEW MORAL BOUNDARIES
    - - SECURITY IS SPPECH ART
        (IT DEPENDS HOW YOU PRESENT IT - CREATION OF DISCOURSE)
        
        LIKE IIN INDIA MORE NO. OF DEATH DUE TO ROAD ACCIEDENTS THA BY TERRORISM EVERY YEAR..BUT IS SHOWED AS BIGGEST THREAT
    - - BAARY BUZAN ACCEPT THAT SECURITY IS SPPECH ACT
      - POLITICIAN SECURITISE AND DESECURITISE THE ISSUE
        LIKE PRESENTLY ETHINIC RELATIONS ARE BEING SCRUTINISED
      - HE SUGGEST THAT IN POST COLD WAR ERA
        WE CAN'T HAVE STATE CENTRIC VIEW OF SECURITY WE NEED TO COMPARMENTALISE THE SECURTY
        
        HE SUGGEST TAKING INTEGRATED VIEW OF:
        
        MILITARY
        
        POLITICAL
        
        SOCIAL
        
        ECONOMIC
        
        ECOLOGICAL