Only $35.99/year

Terms in this set (97)

SALT
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, which resulted in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty I, signed on May 26, 1972 by Brezhnev and Nixon. Negotiations took place in Helsinki, Finland. SALT I led to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and an interim agreement between the two countries. The signing of this treaty also improved relations between the two superpowers, especially important because of Nixon's ongoing opening of CHina, the invasion of Czechoslovakia and the Vietnam War had put increased strain on the relationship.

SALT II
A second round of Strategic Arms Limitation Talks between US/USSR, between '72-'79. It was a continuation of the SALT I talks and was led by representatives from both countries. SALT II was the first nuclear arms treaty which assumed real reductions in strategic forces. The SALT II Treaty banned new missile programs, so both sides were forced to limit their new strategic missile types development and construction. BRezhnev and Carter came to the agreement on June 18, 1979 in Vienna. Six months after the signing, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, and in September of the same year, the United States discovered that a Soviet combat brigade was stationed in Cuba. Although President Carter claimed this Soviet brigade had only recently been deployed to Cuba, the unit had been stationed on the island since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. In light of these developments, the treaty was never ratified by the United States Senate. Its terms were, nonetheless, honored by the U.S. until 1986.

INF
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. It was a 1987 agreement between the United States and the Soviet Union (and later its successor states, in particular the Russian Federation) which eliminated all nuclear and conventional missiles, as well as their launchers, with ranges of 500-1,000 kilometers (short-range) and 1,000-5,500 km (intermediate-range). The treaty did not cover sea-launched missiles. By May 1991, 2,692 missiles were eliminated, followed by 10 years of on-site verification inspections. The treaty was signed on December 8, 1987 by Reagan and Gorbachev. It was ratified by US congress on MAy 27, 1988 and went into force on June 1, 1988.

START
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. Negotiated initially by Reagan, the treaty barred its signatories from deploying more than 6,000 nuclear warheads atop a total of 1,600 ICBMs and bombers. START negotiated the largest and most complex arms control treaty in history, and its final implementation in late 2001 resulted in the removal of about 80 percent of all strategic nuclear weapons then in existence. It was signed on July 31, 1991 and went into force on December 1, 1994, implemented by the Russian Federation and other SOviet successor states. The START I treaty expired 5 December 2009, which kicked off negotiations of New Start.

New START
Signed on 8 April 2010 in Prague, and, after ratification, entered into force on 5 February 2011. It is expected to last at least until 2021. Under terms of the treaty, the number of strategic nuclear missile launchers will be reduced by half. A new inspection and verification regime will be established, replacing the SORT mechanism. It does not limit the number of operationally inactive stockpiled nuclear warheads that remain in the high thousands in both the Russian and American inventories. Negotiated and signed by Obama and Medvedev.
An attentive public is one that pays attention to the issues and reaches political decisions by discussing and weighing the various arguments carefully before formulating specific viewpoints. But those who understand all arguments and utilize them to guide their own thinking, particularly in Foreign Policy, only make up about 1/4th of the American Public. Those who pay attention are often branded as "elites" and are usually businessman who often work with overseas partners, politicians, military personnel, reporters, or the highly educated students of international affairs. The notion that elites drive foreign policy is a theory known as the Elite Determinacy of Foreign Policy.

The other 3/4th comprise the mass public, who are completely checked out when it comes to foreign affairs; generally, they are told what to believe by the media and they do so blindly. This also leaves the majority of the country very exploitable in the eyes of some politicians or the media. The uninformed are generally seen as "teachable" on matters of foreign policy, as the president can, utilizing friendly journalists, sway public opinion on his policies because of the fact the majority of the public does not have strong beliefs on most foreign affairs problems.

Going along with the notion that the uninformed majority are easily exploited by the manner in which issues are presented to them, 'One-Issue Mobilizables' are political parties that focus their entire campaign on a single issue, hoping to mobilize action on the very issue by attracting most of their voters who are dedicated to the exact issue the party is pushing, and only that one issue, with most other issues ignored. The Prohibition party, a long-standing and ineffectual political party pushing for a re-introduction of the banning of alcohol, this time adding drugs and pornography to the fold, is an example of 'One-Issue Mobilizable' political parties. Important to note, parties such as these will never win elections because they will only appeal to a very specific demographic
The Base Force Plan was developed by Colin Powell under the first Bush Administration, and consisted of the DOD transforming its Cold War military capabilities to adjust for the new geopolitical climate. By 1990, when the plan was approved, the defense needs of this almost post-Cold War America were radically different than those during the Cold War. Instead of military buildup in the name of COntainment, there was a new focus on regional threats. It called for 25% reduction of military forces and 10% reduction in budget. This decision was made during the Bush admin. Comprehensive review of national security in a world without the Berlin Wall (and within 2 years, without the Soviet Union). The Ultimate Motivation was to reduce risk of resurgent Soviet threat by lowering tensions. It predicted fewer challenges to US interests and security bc of weakening USSR, and was a precursor for Bush's "New World Order".

It was followed later in the decade with a second major restructure and reduction of US military forces and capabilities. The Bottom Up Review was a comprehensive review of the nation's defense strategy and force structure. It focused on force reductions and budget matters more so than the Base Force Plan. The BUR's force structure reductions were to accelerate and surpass those planned in the Base Force, leading to a total reduction in forces of about one-third—well beyond the Base Force's planned 25 percent reduction. The BUR redefined the meaning of engagement in an important way, giving increased importance to multilateral engagements and humanitarian missions. It was based on the assumption that the USSR/Russia would continue to decline. SOD Aspin announced the planned budget cuts before BUR calculations were made. Force could not meet responsibilities with the cut but still kept as policy.
A belief system is the organized and integrated perceptions of individuals in a society, including foreign-policy decision makers, often based on past history, that guides them to select certain policies over others. Such an example would be the implementation of the Marshall Plan in 1948. Foreign policy experts understood that the harsh reparations owed by Germany after the First World War led to financial ruin, leaving a generation to be brought up in abject poverty, and a once-proud Empire to be dismantled and lose its dignity. This frustration gave rise to the Nazi party. To ensure something similar didn't happen, the American government agreed to foot the bill for European reconstruction, even in Axis countries, so that the Allies could maintain control without fear of reprisals.

An Evoked Set is the tendency to look for details in a contemporary situation that are similar to information previously obtained, thus leading one to conclusions that are similar to those of the past. An example of an evoked set would be the Vietnam war. While a nuanced explanation would highlight the differences between the Korean and Vietnam wars, at its core those wars were fought to prevent a nationalist force, under the banner of Communism, from grasping power away from US-allied regimes, thus leading the country to become COmmunist and fall under the sway of the Soviet Union. The members of the DOD may have noticed these similarities and assumed the situation was identical, save the pivotal difference that there would be no angry CHina waiting on the other side. Thus, victory was necessary and relatively assured, because of their opinion of the present situation based off past experiences, thus an evoked set.

Operational Code and the field dedicated to analyzing it in various world leaders, focuses on determining the modus operandi of of foreign political leaders. The Operational code of a leader is defined by the state of the world around them, whether it is friendly or hostile, and the level of control the leader has on that world. Understanding this fact then leads to the characteristic approach of the actor toward politics: the norms, standards, and guidelines that influence the actor's choice of strategy and tactics.
A free rider is an entity that reaps some form of benefit from a collective public good without using any of its own resources to achieve that public good. Instead, this entity relies on the work and effort of another entity in order to produce the good and subsequently enjoy the benefits. Often time free-riding is a state's behavior at the international level. We can look to NATO as an example. NATO was established in 1949 as a collective security organization led by the US. The good that NATO produces is security, and all of NATO's members benefit from this security. However, the US contributes a substantial amount more than some of the other members to achieve the collective security that benefits all. The Organization was established in order to create stability, with all members paying their fare share to make that a possibility, thus sharing the burden. But this has not always been the can see, and countries that fall short of their financial obligations to NATO, such as Luxembourg, is a free rider. It contributes significantly less resources than the US but still achieves the same benefits.

Significance is that countries are incentivized to contribute the least amount possible to international agreements while still maximizing benefits. This can also be applied to climate change negotiations. Air quality is a public good, but if Country A is the only one cutting emissions but Country B is benefitting from better air quality then Country B is a free rider.

Hegemonic Stability Theory-the belief that one single global hegemon, or a regional hegemon, will maintain a stable liberal economic (free trade) and political system by utilizing the power it has, in comparison to the relatively little power its neighbors have, both economically and militarily. The united states, and the sway it holds over the entire western hemisphere, is an ideal example of this.