One point from yesterday's broad discussion that I don't think was given enough focus was the point of the increasing porosity of state borders in today's world. A few people mentioned how the ones most likely to use a nuclear weapon would be those who aren't state centered. As we learned in IR 10, terrorist organizations are more and more resembling multi-national corporations. Small cells that don't have a state and thus aren't defined by any one territory. We've been trying to bomb al-Qaeda for what, six years now? It hasn't really been working. Israel can't fully defeat Hezbollah because every time they try the rebel group just runs across the border to Syria, or dig deeper trenches in the Lebonese land. The world is becoming increasingly globalized, making states more and more obsolete in the process.
Not that the state is obsolete yet, but what may be are the theories we have learned in class. Realism, functionalism, neo-whatever may be an appropriate guide to show how to react to other states, but not terrorists groups. If a nuclear attack occurs, these people will simply retreat back into hiding and countries can't have any response. Invade and bomb a sovreign nation like Pakistan, which supports the War on Terror because someone chose to take up refuge in their unpolicable mountain range? I believe that while the theories we've learned are still partially relevant in today's world, many of them lack the forsight to see into today's modern, globalized world.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
So you think that it is very likely, or at least likely, that non-state actors (ie. terrorist groups) will get nuclear weapons? It would be interesting for you to discuss your point of view with Agata, who seems to think the opposite (see "Realist theory and nuclear capabilities).
Post a Comment