‘THAAD’ DEPLOYMENT TO SOUTH KOREA

Introduction

Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) missile launching defense system has remained to spark serious protest and backlash issues at home. In addition to that, it should be noted that THAAD offers extensive ballistic missile defenses system which are globally transportable, rapidly deployable capacity to the extent of destroying and intercepting ballistic missiles outside and inside the atmosphere during its final phase of flight (Green et al, 2016).

THAAD’s powerful system has the capacity of making a country to be a key military target. Because of this, the government South Korea and its ministry of defense is necessitated to look for means of minimizing any negative effects posed by the THAAD not only to its citizens but also to the environment (Sheehan, 1996).  The reason for this is because an unprecedented political scandal has for decades now engulfed South Korea. This sort of scandal commenced because of the views regarding the Blue House officials which was exerted under the general influence of the federations of Korean industries in donating millions of dollars to some non-profit foundations.  Therefore, the essence of this paper is to explain the political and socioeconomic implication of the THAAD deployment in South Korean in respect to the various theories;

To begin with, the uncertainty of the South Korean strategic initiatives has the capacity of paralyzing progress in its security arrangements which entails acquiring reliable nuclear weapons.  This makes its nuclear threat or deal to be more tangible and real. Conversely the tremors which will be caused by this security system have grown extensively to the extent of making the South Korean missile technology to advance to the extent where the missiles can be able to reach close to the territory of Japan. Most precisely, it appears that there is the need of building nuclear device which are relatively smaller enough so that it can be mounted on a missile (Green et al, 2016).

Conversely, the balance of power theory indicates that the bilateral security arrangements among Japan, United States and South Korea remains to be perceived as being critical when it comes to addressing the increasing North Korea nuclear threat to other states. Because of this, the government is forced to take necessary steps of strengthening trilateral cooperation. Despite that one, it has been noted is that the South Korean leadership has extensively mired some political scandal at some point when it should be in the forefront of leading the way of carrying some of these strategic initiatives as well as addressing the North Korean nuclear threat with its enemies or regional partners. In other words, the failure of the South Korean in taking the lead will most properly imply mean delay in these initiatives thus impending greater trilateral cooperation (Kelleher et al, 2015). 

Nevertheless, the fate of the major strategic initiatives which ought to be have been implemented are now in jeopardy. This is because of the unprecedented as well bizarre South Korean political scandal which continues to engulf it. Although the effect of this scandal is being taken into consideration, its government will be forced to take up such plans. For now, the perceived future of these major agreements have become more unstable and uncertain  thus leaving South Korea in a paralyzed and precarious situation even if North Korea continues to make extensive progress in its nuclear weapon program  (Green et al, 2016).

Because of the above considerations, it has been noted that South Korea and the United States have now reached an agreement decision in order to deploy Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile battery to the U.S. This in return has necessitated Korea to ensure that the security of Korea are taken into greater consideration to the extent of protecting North Korea alliance forces from the weapons of mass destruction as well as ballistic missile threats of South Korea. In other words, the multiple ballistic and nuclear missile tests, which comprises of the recent intermediate missile attempts, highlights the grave threat which is posed by the North Korean to the stability and security of South Korea and the whole of Pacific region (Kelleher et al, 2015).

Furthermore, with respect to the evolving threat from the North Korea, the United States as well as the government of South Korea has been forced to conduct formal consultations regarding the feasibility of deploying nuclear weapons (Lee, 2016). Due to these move, the joint working indicates that the military effectiveness of the THAAD on Korean Peninsula has extreme devastating effect on the environment, safety requirements and health concerns. Therefore, it means that South Korea and United States will embark on establishing swift deployment strategies of the THAAD battery which will assist them in developing safe and environmental friendly operation procedures. In other words, the deployment of THAAD system to the Korean Peninsula will be focused mainly on the nuclear and missile threats from North Korea. This means that any of these military activities will not be directed to any of the third party nations. The deployment of the THAAD will largely contribute to the layered missile defense which will foster the alliance’s existing missile defense capabilities against the North Korean missile threats (Patrick, 2010).

Another point of concern is the effectiveness of THAAD to Seoul. Basically, it is argued that the deployment of THAAD military missiles may not prove to be effective in protecting Seoul. The location of Seoul is over 200 km from the proposed missile installment location. This means that it will be away from the protected zone to be provided by the THAAD system. Despite that, it can be said that it wise to offer sufficient protection to the US troops to be stationed in any site. This is the main reason as to why the Korean government had to meet with the president of the United States in order to discuss the THAAD system in the first place (Kelleher et al, 2015).

In accordance to the above views, it is clear that THAAD forms the main element of the multilayer defense program of the United States in the region. Its main objective is defending its troops. This has in return sparked profound regional controversy. For instance, because of that, both Russia, China and North Korea have decided to object although the prime reason for this is the envisaging the beginning of ‘new Cold War’ as some critics perceive it. To point out, since the official release of the THAAD deployment statement, China remained to be strongly objected to that decision thus requesting the government of South Korea to terminate such plans (Lee, 2016). Because of the differing political views of the two states, China ended up restricting the importation of variety of audio-visual K-pop music from it. Since China is the largest trading partner of South Korea, such retaliation is a huge concern to the South Korean economy.

In connection to that, before the announcement of the THAAD mission, Russia and China ended up issuing a joint statement. The objective behind this was to express their concern over the unilateral operation of the antimissile systems all over the world. This then means that such operations were non-constructive hence negatively affecting the global as well as the regional security, stability, and strategic balance (Stewart, 2006). In addition to that, the deployment of the THAAD systems, more especially in Northeast Asia, will ultimately infringe the security interests of countries found in that region. In response to that, Russia and China considered this strategy as being detrimental hence the need of ensuring that US have had their primary military security within their range.

Equally, it can be argued that the general decision of deploying the THAAD missile systems will deter the North Korean attacks thus pushing China to increase pressure on strategies so that it can be able to roll back its weapon programs.

It is clear that technological advancement in the field of military is the one which has contributed to the establishment o the THAAD missile systems. Regardless of that, the implication of the nuclear standoff to the Korean Peninsula will be much disastrous for the region; particularly in case the logic of striking first to do away with the capacity of others was to prevail (Patrick, 2010). With these views, it can be illustrated that the alternative solution ought to be in place. This includes things like building trust in both counties and between China and United States. The reason for this is because both of these countries are extremely suspicious about the ambition of each other in matters dealing with Korean Peninsula and South China Sea.

The effectiveness of THAAD, to some extent, is somehow difficult to prove. Typically, with genuinely imaginative ideas as well as military approaches based on both forward-looking and trust-building negotiations, either of the two Korean states can be in the position of finding means of solving this untenable dilemma without being caught up in the hegemony game that is currently being played out by China and United States. However, this is still a big challenge to tackle (Lee, 2016).

Considering the above views, it can be stated that in case the assessment of THAAD is perceived as being correct, it means that the system will provide clear protection to the Seoul residents while threatening other states. Although it can be argued that this may not do anything I combating such threats, South Korea will remain to be the key military target thus making the North Korean artillery missile deployment strategies to be relevant to the current conflict. South Korea will then have to consider buying its own THAAD missile launching system so as to be able to offer genuine or realistic national coverage into the future (Stewart, 2006). This is because, it decision should not be based on the complimentary actions of the ROK military but on the international and regional security implications of such decision.

Once, the common sentiment in this is that the premeditated collateral imposed on South Korea by this missile strategy will force its diplomats to consider their extensive inaction steps on North Korea’s nuclear efforts. This can also be coupled with the views that the THAAD system will ultimately destroy the international relationship of these states which in return has profound economic repercussions.  Likewise, although little analysis taken does not indicate the manner in which the THAAD missile system will shape South Korea or its neighboring states, its impact can be based on the missile intercepting aspect of this system. In other words, this assumption does not account for any major THAAD component that communicates and identifies the main location of the missile targets to the interceptor (Sheehan, 1996).  This is to say that the main concern of the South Korean republic is not only the component of the THAAD war system but on the detection capacity to be provided through it.

Similarly, the possibility here is that to some extent, the THAAD system will increase the anxiety of the neighboring states which in return will spur reprisals. Perhaps, but the fact is that these will be the major risks now that South Korea is closer to the nuclear-tipped missile. The likelihood is that it will remain to be on track of building dozens of these systems in the next decade (Lee, 2016). 

Even so, it is its missile as well as nuclear programs that will remain to be the real challenge to the stable conventional deterrence on its territory. Nuclear missilization will of course offer it a growing systematic advantage. Therefore, failing to respond to it will mean that South Korean will be more vulnerable to nuclear first strike or nuclear blackmail in case of the crisis escalades the existing conflict. Whatever the risk or challenges the THAAD deployment will impose, the inaction of the South Korean government to it is greater (Patrick, 2010). All that should be noted is that THAAD has the capacity of mitigating these risks without offensively threatening its neighbors.

Due to the fact that THAAD system is much more importantly symbolic unlike it is in reality, such a symbolic must be discounted. This is because it clearly indicates security interests which lie in South Korea. Another reason for this is because the succession of North Korea’s nuclear tests demonstrates the significance and, indeed, the general incompetence of South Korea’s foreign policy establishment (Sheehan, 1996). Because of this, the entire situation speaks of the futility of trying to take control over nuclear weapons. What this means that even with international intervention, it is relatively hard to eliminate the continued production of nuclear weapons or stop new acquirers of these weapons. Besides that, the acquisition of nuclear missiles cannot be efficiently defended against, particularly in quantity. Since our contemporary world is doomed to some unprecedented holocaust at the same time, all it means is that humanity cannot survive humanity (Stewart, 2006).

I order to ease tension imposed in South Korea as by its enemies, there is the need of taking some kinds of provocative actions. To be more precise, the consideration for this is that there is no need of expanding or taking additional military steps. The reality is that allies should also try to coordinate all their military operations to the extent of addressing their conflicts.

What’s more is that the deployment of THAAD to South Korea will definitely contribute to the rise of tension than its reduction.  The reason for this is because of its perceived implication on the global standoff.  Equally, it is evident that the current system of the nuclear equality is built upon a number of principles. One of these principles postulates that the missile nuclear attack that is to be launched to South Korea by another country will most probably inflict some unacceptable damage despite of whether it wins or loses in the end (FELS, 2016).  Therefore, the truth is that the deployment of THAAD missile to South Korea will be harmful to the whole world.  Another consideration for this is that, given the increasing speed of the missile, the defending country will definitely be unable to evacuate its citizens.  Because of that, it means that South Korea will be forced to respond through launching its nuclear missiles. This will render both of the countries to destruction from such attacks. The question that arises from this is whether it will make sense to embark on a no-win war negotiations.  Thus, understanding or acknowledging the brutality and meaningless of war will be the best means of maintaining peace.  Despite that one, from time to time some nations used to fall into an illusion that they have the potential of overplaying their opponents and because of this believe they respond by launching missiles (Patrick, 2010). The truth here is that deploying THAAD in South Korea will increase its capacity of fighting its enemies.

As far as military operations are concerned, the deployment of THAAD in South Korea is intended at defending not only the structure but also its citizens and core military capacities underpinning the U.S-Korea treaty (FELS, 2016). Therefore, it will not be the universal remedy for the potential vulnerability of South Korea’s missile attacks from North Korea but it will appreciably strengthen the Seoul still and limited missile defense capacities. This will explicitly link it to greater assets of US.

Contrary to the above considerations, THAAD deployment in South Korea will imply that it will underestimate its determinations of proceeding with missile defense strategies. This will tie Seoul much more to the long term cooperation with US. To some states like China, this decision is unwelcomed although it is crucial to offer appropriate defense. In association to that, the reality is that THAAD deployment in South Korea will serve as the precise means of protecting its vital national security interests (Stewart, 2006).

Moreover, some critics argue that the deployment of THAAD in South Korea will definitely undermine the strategic balance that is already established in the Asian-Pacific Region. These views are tied with the fact that THAAD is capable of whipping up the tension in the region. This means that it will make resolutions of the current complicated political situation on the Korean Peninsula together with its denuclearization to be even more challenging (Sheehan, 1996).

As noted above, the impact of THAAD deployment in South Korea is that it will assist its patriot missile defenses to be in the position o stopping short-range North Korean Scud missiles. This is because it is designed to seize longer-range missiles like those of North Korea which has the possibility of travelling much higher speed in the process of reentering the atmosphere. Contrary to that, at the first instance it is suggested that South Korea does not have any plans of deploying THAAD systems since it does posses them.  The plan is the deployment of alternative THAAD systems. Because of these contradicting views, the deployment of THAAD in South Korea is all about deploying some of the U.S. THAAD battery which is aimed at its forces from the North Korean nuclear weapon threats (Lee, 2016).

Consequently, it will be extremely hard to determine or predict the manner in which its neighbors will react with respect to the influence of U.S. military in South Korea.  For example, given the great power ambitions of countries like China, there will be instances of introduction of strong to THAAD deployment. The idea behind this is that such an objection will be seen as a crucial diversionary tactic more especially drawing the attention from the failure of such states to meaningfully influence the behavior of North Korea (FELS, 2016). This will make China to progress with its existing course and rhetoric thus punishing South Korea economically.

Alternatively, the deployment of THAAD systems in South Korea cannot be perceived as the best or fake military strategy to take. Most probably, this deployment has the ability of changing the dynamics as well as the terms of military debate resulting to profound Chinese intervention to North Korea in order to curb its missile and nuclear threats (Patrick, 2010). Needless to say, United States and South Korea should do an effective job of explaining their defensive rationale and resolve to the government of China and its people. The major issue here among other arguments should be the danger it will impose whilst allowing North Korea nuclear weapon program to progress with its unfettered growth.

Although some critics argue that THAAD deployment in South Korea will result into various political problems, its deployment will cause regional or global instability. In other words, in case the THAAD system is completely ineffective, we can say that its adversaries ought to be happy because of the opportunity costs to be incurred by South Korea and United States. In response to that, the two states will be forced to have considerable foreign investment since their firms are important to the world economies (FELS, 2016). This is to say that being that the market size of China makes South Korea to be more vulnerable to economic countermeasures; THAAD deployment come retaliation would hurt the economic growth of the two states.

In line with that, it is evident that South Korea is a presidential system that has strong executive powers, particularly in the area of national security policy. Thus, the deployment of THAAD systems will mean that it will not require any legislative approval. Being that there have been protests about the expansion as well as the building of its military base, it means that in case citizens and activists are able to reverse this decision, this will lead to dangerous consequences.  The general acquiescence to these demands will be perceived as being the weakness and lack of resolve by the South Korean government (Kelleher et al, 2015). Caving in to the existing threats would majorly embolden those who consider more deadly threats, for instance as a nuclear attack.

To sum up, THAAD deployment in South Korea has an adverse impact on both political and socioeconomic development.  Moreover, being that the nuclear blackmail from its neighboring countries would not be credible, setting up a precedent for the appeasement will typically encourage more attempts at coercion.

Bibliography

Stewart P. 2006. Weak States and Global Threats: Fact or Fiction?

Sheehan M. 1996. The Meaning of the Balance of Power. In The Balance of Power: History and Theory, chap. 1, 1-23. New York: Routledge Press

Patrick A. M. 2010. European Journal of International RelationS. SAGE Press

Christopher L. 2012. This Time It’s Real: The End of Unipolarity and the Pax Americana

Green, Michael, Kathleen Hicks, Mark Cancian, Zack Cooper, John Schaus, and Ernest Z. Bower. 2016. Asia-Pacific rebalance 2025: capabilities, presence, and partnerships : an independent review of U.S. defense strategy in the Asia-Pacific. http://csis.org/files/publication/160119_Green_AsiaPacificRebalance2025_Web_0.pdf.

Kelleher, Catherine McArdle, and Peter J. Dombrowski. 2015. Regional missile defense from a global perspective.

Lee, Chung Min. 2016. Fault lines in a rising Asia. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1232692.

FELS, E. (2016). Shifting Power in Asia-Pacific?: the Rise of China, Sino-US Competition and Regional Middle Power Allegiance. Cham, SWITZERLAND, Springer. http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=4732585.

GEOGRAPHIC POLITICAL SCIENCE

The issue of South China Sea has drawn many Nations into a stiff contest for the benefit of the island significant resources. The conflicts is no doubt one of fiercest as each party seeks vital alliance to support their claims and that is where embracing international foreign relationships connotation comes in. It is true, international relationship aids in solving globalization, economic, political, and social matters, therefore the water body of South China Sea remains crucial as this depends on the international relationships being mended by concerned parties. As a matter of fact, history of the people is what shapes the perception of people meaning the historical backgrounds have a lot of stake in such conflicts. Also, the media contributes a plentiful of shared meanings amongst a vast number of inhabitants as per this case Philippines and china people alike have strong believe and trust of their local media even making the situation more complicated. China claims of having long streak of history with the disputed island plays out to be weightier and probably legit compared to other contesting nationalist. And as for the Philippines’ who have solemnly depended on The United States to restore their hopes for the island. The republic of China people from the word go have been very willing negotiate and see that the issue is solved for the better good of both parties.

The impacts of this dispute would be immense bearing in mind it is one of the convenient passage between the oceans of India and Pacific. Economic power will be the ultimate prize for the wining party as the trading routes revitalizes the economy in a huge margin. However, with so many countries adjoining the South China Sea there might be great stakes to be lost and animosity could upsurge. Gaining power courtesy of the island is the eventual netted through trade, law, and also politics.

The Bomb

According to Harrier, the fear itself shows contrasts in anarchists and status. For example in the novel, police are killed and the bomb thrower is unknown. The scenario shows that there was a disorderly government which caused social disorder.  Given that fear is the strongest dominant emotion, people are able to differentiate between disorder from normal status and from anarchists (Harris, 6). From the novel, there is evidence that in the past decades, there has been political disobedience which at last brought the terrorist violence. According to the novel, the country had both communism and anarchism and both brings different perceptions in that one believes that there should be no government but rather there should be self governance (Harris, 6). The other believes that there should be communists’ party and there should be no private ownership.  In this case, the author shows that before the bomb was thrown, there was labor disputes and political unrest between socialists, anarchists and capitalists in America. The confrontation between the groups creates an emotional response and people tend to define the disorder as a result of anarchy but not normal chaos (Harris, 294).  For example, socialists and individualists   were not in good terms in that the former wanted more government so that it can progress the society and create a democracy. The latter wanted motive-power and own strength and capitalism. The fear from people’s emotion comes from the notion that the country is disordered and the disagreement between two or more parties brings adverse effects to the well being of the people (Harris, 284). Generally, there is difference between Marxists and anarchists on how the two parties understand the states.  For example, the former believes in concentration of power while the latter believes in ‘socialism from above’ and class rule.

Work cited

Harris Frank. The Bomb. Copyright 1909 iy  Mitchell Kennerley

 Retrieved  from: https://archive.org/stream/cu31924013479708/cu31924013479708_djvu.txt

Analytical Paper on Brave New World

2. Explain why you agree or disagree with the following statement. “American society today has much the same value system as that of the world state. The major difference is simply that the world state is much more efficient in achieving those values than is our society.” If not, what is it about our value system that is different?

It is true to say that American society and world state have the same value system. The societies in World state and America are controlled by technology both societies chose comfort and happiness in order to create a stable society (Huxley, 2006).  After the biological and anthrax bomb, both societies developed fundamental values which unites the individuals together.  Technology has usurped God, standardization is the norm, diversity and identity have been abandoned and human existence has been negatively impacted by war and diseases. Natural birth is abandoned and child birth is done in test tubes.  The novel clearly shows that the similar values in both societies demonstrate how human being can be dehumanized and exploited by science and technology (Huxley, 2006). In other words, technology has enslaves individuals and technological knowledge is for the purpose of manufacturing goods but not for commercial commodity.  It is worth saying that both worlds are emotionally anaesthetized and human beings have become masters of technology, science and politics.  The social norms in both worlds have created decadent and perverted societies where love, religion and natural birth have need   removed from culture and viewed as threat to the society.  Generally, humanity is lost and instead of focusing on realism, societies reflect on social context hence creating a hideous and abhorrent society.  It is important to note that the value systems which are rooted from technology have enslaved mankind and what takes control is sterility (Huxley, 2006).  As a result scientific environment, people have become mindless and do not respect the nature.   

Though the two societies perceive similar value system, world state is much more powerful in achieving the values. Note that the society in this world is controlled by technology and the society has more power.  According to the novel, the society has 10rules who controls the world and provides dictatorship.  Individuals are controlled by technology and all people create a strong interaction without valuing the family Affiliation (Huxley, 2006). The drug represents a power influence and a daily ritual   in that mind and body becomes relaxed and more important it creates a happy and peaceful environment. The society believes that knowledge is power. For example, Mustapha breaks the Shakespeare’s rules and believes that old and beautiful things should rule the society.  The world state is more powerful than American society because it controls people through technological intervention and creates social stability using Soma.  The society believes that invention is the main element which can bring progress and the industrial system is controlled by consumerism and productivism.  Consumerist ideals are focused on the notion that “Ending is better than mending” (Huxley, 2006). Individuals follow the principles of consumption and live with consumer oriented mentality. It clearly shows that they hate nature and they choose to have own freedom   in order to live a happy live. In terms of religion, citizens follow the ‘Technopoly’ ideal where invention is the God.  All individual have sexual attitudes and they interact with everybody for recreational.  In addition, technology has principles which direct people the right path. The economic structure is made firm by mass production and workers should enjoy meager life and life of servitude.  In modern American society, social institutions have been highly affected by the technology (Huxley, 2006). Value system has been changed and institutions such as family, morality, religion and more have been negatively affected.  Family relation is weak and unstable since marriage itself is seen as civil contract.  Religion is not values and people are being involved in secular religions and scientific believes.

There is no difference in value system between American society and world states. Technology is used to controls society and it play role in life by providing happiness and stability.  In addition, the society can be referred as consumer society where individuals rely on buying and selling in order to satisfy their needs (Huxley, 2006).   In America, individuals tend to have personal control over the nature.  They view it in a positive perspective that it is normal to control the nature. In this case, they believe that bad luck is a result of laziness to control the nature and thus, technology is helping to take self-interest in the environment.  Like the world state, the American society value change rather than tradition, stability and ancient heritage. With the technology, they believe that there should be progress, improvement and growth and each person should have the responsibility as well as self-help control (Huxley, 2006).  Other point which defines the value system is that the society is materialistic and put much focus on material things.  In order to create a happy life and stability, people in American society use personal freedom and rejects the social outcomes. They are devaluing the truth and follow the perception that happiness is as a result of self-acceptance.  The society   focuses on future orientation and devalues the past. They are controlled by competition   to create free enterprise. Materialism and competition creates personal comfort where they access not only food and medical but also recreational materials such as cars (Huxley, 2006).

Reference

Huxley, A. (2006). Brave new world. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

            New Arms race between Russian, China, and U.S.A                          

       Introduction

We are currently witnessing salvos opening in the renewed race arms. Most of the time, resources, and energy that are utilized in planning how to pose a defeat to al-Qaida and those groups which share the same interests and desires have always been utilized as a view of the threat that is posed by Russia, china and United States (Door, 2016).  Based on the recent investigations and reviews it is clear that the threats have again appeared in the fresh space weapons frontiers that is stirred by the three states.  Amongst the  fake air attacks,  cold war eruption and incursions marine development by the Russians,  the Chinese  maritime  adventurism and the fear  that the Ukraine events  and those in Crimea are bound to reoccur in the Baltics can be termed  as the  ongoing threat of the fresh  weapons which seeks to weaken the American  battlements as well as its general strengths.  The fresh kinds of weapons are divided into three major categories which are fresh drones, hypersonic missiles and the systems of antisatellite.  The part that wished that the arms race would not occur has already been dumped in the arms history (Door, 2016).  China and the Russian state are completely opposing the domination of the world by a state power that is neither of the states. In addition, the Russia and Chinese are attempting to test a space fly warhead based on an odd long-range warhead which exercises via the atmosphere. On the other hand,  Beijing  and Moscow are  conducting a  test of space weapons which holds the capability of  knocking  out  the military satellites of America during  the nuclear  war start. This research will, therefore, seek to establish why the weapons of pursuit will pose a threat to Russia, America, and china from an existential view.

According to, Door, (2016), in his book about the arms race, states that the analysis the hypersonic weapons development generates   situations for fresh arms race which would result in the escalation of a nuclear risk.  There are different rationales behind why several nations are conducting tests on the weapons. In the context of the United States, the state is generating hypersonic is based on two primary reasons.  First, it is mainly because it holds the intention of eradicating the global thermonuclear of the messy war’s danger.  The second it is because the state wants to gain the capability of punching via the defensive approaches of peer contestants.  It is, however, unfortunate the two reasons are contradictory to each other.  This is based on the fact that   china, India as well as Russia are heading to attaining the same systems and this calls for the attention of not permitting technology to overtaken by the political outpace (Door, 2016).

In the context of hypersonic weapons, terminology hypersonic is utilized to refer generally to the long range weapons strike precisions which travel at more than Mach 5 of at just Mach 5 (Door, 2016).  The definition, however, makes an exclusion of things such as munitions because they are fired by developed gun systems which only travel only sixty miles as well as those weapons that travel under a sound speed.  Such weapons that can be termed as ballistic missiles which hold guidance precision like those that are operated by both the Russian and Chinese states are termed as hypersonic weapons. On the other hand, America does not operate any of such weapons types but it effectively provides an equal capability like those that are provided by the fresh hypersonic approaches. For the United States, it is working on generating a hypersonic weapon that is advanced land-based, a long range car that operates within the surrounding in avoiding the occurrence of ballistic arms. With the rise of al Qaeda, the United States hopes of becoming the key of offering security. In addition, the state has already begun an exploration of how the weapons would provide assistance in destroying munitions nuclear (Door, 2016).

Based on James, (2015), in postwar America emphasized that Chinese and the Russian state hold distinct incentives. This is given that Russia fully understands the amputation petition but in rare cases, it has the equal need of striking across the international boundaries.  On a similar hand, the Chinese tend to hold a concern that can be categorized as local (James, 2015).  The development of Russia and china lies in the detection of anti-access abilities and the growing need of getting at the same level that America is in toady.  The hypersonic strike vehicles are bound to provide an indefensible and a potential means that are aligned to attack America, American maritime and military installations.

In short, because the three states are working towards similar goals does not imply that they are working together. This is mainly because china and Russia are primarily working against America because they are against its domination.  Russia and china are working towards the same direction based on technological imperatives and the urge to dominate the position that is currently occupied by America (James, 2015).

Johnson-Freese, (2009), in the book about the quest of America to fully dominate space, asserts that the discussion of the conflict of great nation’s power is acceptable today because the conflict has always been there.  It was stated that giving much effort towards counterterrorism would result in the enhancing of conflict a mid-huge nation has happened.  Russia and china are considered to be a threat based on the much resources and efforts that are utilized in fighting terrorism. Russia is working on exploring arms such as zircon 3k 22 systems and on the other hand china is currently working on the development of 21d Dongfeng which is normally termed as carrier killer of the aircraft. This is possibly the longest ICBM longest range in the entire world currently as far as the development of arms stands. The Russian state is attempting to develop weapons through pursuing submarine drones that are particularly none operated which would give the opportunity of sneaking in the United States ports. It is clear that china and Russia are trying to establish fresh and better means of doing things.  The United States, china as well as Russia are now following fresh small and less destructive weapons of nuclear.  This development, therefore, threatens the occurrence of cold war arms race (Johnson-Freese, 2009).

According to, Owen, (2006),  Moscow is developing  large arms which are topped by  warheads miniaturized which  results in the fear that  this may result in the violation of international ban test as it attempts on developing fresh weapons.  On the accusation that  china has tried to  develop a zone of air defense, Beijing’s has continuously maintained  that  it has the right as a state on building on its own territory and it stated  that the island will  basically be utilized  for the  objectives of civilians basically (Owen, 2006).

Schoen, & Kaylan, (2014), in the book about the alignment of China and Russia, states that the states have aligned themselves to oppose America.  The two nations are supposed to be involved in the development of similar arms and weapons for several decades. However, it has been established that the attempt of keeping up with the United States by the two nations has continuously failed.  The three nations are involved in the development of nuclear and tactical arms which can be termed as non-approached weapons which are purposed for supporting naval, air forces as well as land in those parts that are related closely to friendly military territories.  America is working on a guided nuclear bomb and it holds the capability of penetrating several meters below the ground.  This weapon is unique because it is not aimed at generating destruction because the bomb is meant to be carried by speed jets with controlled damages to the lives of individuals as well as structures which are significant (Schoen, & Kaylan, 2014).

According to, Broad & Sanger, (2016), in the article about the fresh arms race threats, asserts that there is a growing an alignment between china and Russia as they are feeling threatened by the United States unilateralism. Russia, china, and the United States are the world’s representation of the most powerful nations in regard to technology and military power based on history.  This, therefore, shows that the association of the three nations would result in numerous benefits to the world and to the nations in terms of development.  However, china and Russia still perceives that the collaboration of the two nations is the most effective based on the fact that they believe that one of them should be occupying the position of dominating the world. The collaboration of china and Russia has raised a major threat because the collaboration is mainly based on the opposition against a single state. In addition, it seems that the main reason that the nations are aligning themselves is based on selfish gains which can thus be termed as something that is not fair and logic (Broad & Sanger, 2016).

The alliance is purposed at lowering the authority of American globally and this definitive only to the two nations.  The opposition of the three nations, therefore, has thus generated the new arms race today (Broad & Sanger, 2016).  This is mainly because the nations are working on the same objective of developing arms that are characterized by less destruction but they cannot work together as each is motivated by different rationales.  America is generally involved in the development of the weapons basically because it wants to fight terrorism. On the other hand china and Russia are motivated by technological advancement and the desire of dominating the world by taking over the American first position (Broad & Sanger, 2016).

According to, Singer, & Cole, (2015), currently a naval warhead is being tested which is described as hypersonic glide. This occurrence, therefore, threatens the cold war evolvement between Russian and china against the American state.  This is therefore described as a huge measure and evaluation of dynamics which has resulted in the development of Russian economic decline, the development of china which is mainly influenced by technology and the American state’s uncertainties.  The presidents of the three states are currently facing intensified blames for permitting the development of arms which are not respecting the arms control authority.  In addition, it is felt that the three nations are currently involved in the arms race war because of their personals aims and not mainly for the wellbeing of the general public.  With the involved risks of the weapons that are being developed by the nations, it is clear that modernization is being utilized as a mode of offering safety while in a real sense it is the ability of the nations to work against each other.  The primary concern of developing these weapons is the involved risks, destructions as well as the nation’s wellbeing. The nations should compete on the grounds of development and not mainly on the quest of attempting the world’s safety and security (Singer, & Cole, 2015).

Concepts

There is an ongoing arms race between China, Russia, and the United States.  China and Russia are aligning themselves based on the feeling of United States unilateralism threat (Schoen, & Kaylan, 2014).  The United States, China, and Russia are the major states that are currently popular with regard to their geographical positions, political, social and economic development.  The nations are the most significant and military authoritative nations based on the world’s history.  The alignment of Russia and China is an association that is viewed by most studies to be objected on undermining the United States based on its position.  The close proximity between the nations has resulted in the frustration of the United States because the nation’s collaboration is associated with a certain degree of strength against a single state (Schoen, & Kaylan, 2014).  The collaboration between China, America and Russia would result in huge and numerous benefits for all the states as well as a close the global.  However, China and Russia believes that their combination is the best association because they are aligned with the same objectives of overtaking the United States and therefore aligning themselves with American would be drawing their purposes behind.  The states hold the assumption that the United States is only interested in maintaining its position and thus their interests will never be considered.  To them, the combination of the three states would only benefit the United States by gaining more economic and military development thus terming the combination as a crowd (Schoen, & Kaylan, 2014).

The alliance between China and Russia is not ultimate for the United States as it undergrads its global authority (Singer, & Cole, 2015). However, America is a powerful nation which has strategic objectives and measures which will work to see its progress.  In addition similar to Russia United States has aligned itself with powerful states.  Since Russia and China have the opportunity of working with different states   this will help in developing its objectives (Singer, & Cole, 2015).   Pursue of weapons with fewer destructions by the states is a threat to the development of a cold war which has affected Russia and American while China continuous to grow. The united stated is mainly focusing on generating safety through the utilization of modernization while China is trying to utilize technological development in solving the existing weapons issues. On the other hand, Russia is being blamed as it is developing arms controls which are in turn resulted in nuclear authority shrinking.  The major issue in this is mainly grounded on a generation of weapons which holds less destruction (Singer, & Cole, 2015). 

Methodology

              This research will thus utilize a qualitative research method which will mainly entail historical analysis description.  The analysis will involve a description of the arms race between Russia, China, and America as well as the aligning aspects.

Body

                Great power conflict is now acceptable to discuss. Since 9/11, those of us who warned that an over-abundance of attention paid to counterterrorism would result in enhancing the myth that great power conflict is over have been proved right. Great power conflict is not back, because it never left. All the time and energy spent on how to defeat al-Qaida and likeminded groups has always been a side-show to the threats that could be posed by a resurgent Russia and rising China (Door, 2016). Finally, it is understood that these threats have reappeared in the new frontier of space weapons. We are now witnessing the opening salvos in this renewed arms race. Amid talk of Cold War-level simulated air attacks and increased naval forays by the Russians, maritime adventurism by the Chinese, and the shadow that the events in the Ukraine and Crimea will be replayed in the Baltics is the looming threat of new weapons that seek to undermine American military strength and defenses. The new categories of weapons fall under three main categories: hypersonic missiles, new drones and anti-satellite systems. The most dangerous of the three is the hypersonic missile: this hypersonic rocket re-enters the atmosphere, then a glider pulls up to fly horizontally, unpowered, for up to thousands of miles at preliminary speeds in the high hypersonic range of Mach 10 to 20 (about 7,000 to 14,000 miles per hour). There is no defense against this type of missile. Aside from speed, the missile can travel close to the ground, and evade defenses; the highly vaunted Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense system is incapable of hitting it (Broad & Sanger 2016).

The new arms race has begun between Russia China and the United States.  The three top world super authority nations are in a fresh arms race in developing aircraft and hypersonic missiles (Seedhouse, 2010). In order for the devices to be classified as fully  hypertonic  aircraft  as well as missiles,  they are required  to  have the capability  of traveling at Mach 5 which is an approximation of  3800 meters  per every hour.  The  united states have  been involved  in aircraft testing  that  has been able to travel to  Mach   with the use of two hundred and  thirty  nautical  miles  per hour.  The wave rider X-51 is founded from the underground wing of a bomber referred as B-52.  According to the air forces researcher’s base, there is a belief that by the year 2040 the United States will have developed a complete functioning aircraft hypersonic aircraft (Seedhouse, 2010). 

The current missiles , as well as aircraft that are being utilized by the united states, are not characterized by  high pace  as currently required by the military (Roberts, 2016).  The united states  military  desires to  gain the capability of hitting  targets that  are higher and characterized   with  a higher speed than those  that are  portrayed by the  existing  technology.  The  primary  missile that is utilized  by  united states  military  is referred as  tomahawk  missile cruise.  The missile is characterized   by a fast speed which is 550 meters per every hour.  In America’s arsenal, the fastest aircraft is regarded as Raptor F-22.  Its primary speed has not been listed officially but based on the suggestions that have recently been made by an expert the Raptor has the ability to top out at the second Mach (Roberts, 2016).

Russia and china are additionally working on technology that is required in developing hypersonic missiles.  The primary goal that is held by the both countries is to be able to develop missiles with the capability of generally breaking via the United States missiles ballistic defense system. The two nations are facing the challenges of overcoming the authority that is subjected by the United States (Broad & Sanger, 2016).  The nations are therefore faced with the issue and difficulty of attempting to gain full control over the nature of hypersonic missiles.  They want to be the ones that develop these missiles instead of the United States. The two nations, therefore, believe that collaboration with the United States is bound to weaken their agenda because   America is already holding the top most position (Broad & Sanger, 2016). 

Hypersonic missiles are clearly objected and design in order to develop erratic effect in the two states path of flight.  The two nations are  therefore involved in the  design of the missiles  based  on the fact that  the united states missiles system of defense utilizes trajectories that are fixed in order to  object defense  against those missiles  coming  against  it. America is currently holding the first position   globally in terms of   military power, the economy as   well as political grounds (Broad & Sanger, 2016).  This is thus not regarded as a favorable thing for both China and Russia because they want to occupy the position.  They, therefore, believe that the position can be occupied by them if the military system of the United States is weakened.  This is why the two nations are working of disrupting the missiles defense system of America.  The missile developed by the Chinese which is referred as Wu-14 of china has been tested four times as per now based on the recent reports.   These intelligent reports also make the statement that the Chinese Wu14 has the capability of traveling 7,000 meters per hour (Sharma, 2011).

On the other hand, the Yu-71 has recently been tested this year and the test results were not efficient.  Reports, therefore, make claims that Russia has the ability to develop twenty-four nuclear with hypersonic weapons capability amid the year 2020 and 2015 (Sharma, 2011).  The testing of the Chinese missile in the early 2114 notice was recorded by congress which was also accompanied by a joint statement.  This  statement issued that  after defense cuts round  have utilized  the  technological  advancement of America to their own gain  Russia, china and all the other competitors are continuously pushing  for military parity  behind the united states. In several cases and particularly the one of fresh arms race development the nations are jumping ahead of America.  This circumstance is therefore not objected at demonstrating and promoting peaceful coexistence between nations.  This, therefore, called for the need of the United States to develop its technology more than what it is utilizing currently. This is to ensure that the nations do not take advantage of its abilities to use the advantages of it (Sharma, 2011).

Based on the  complexity  of  hypertonic  technology  there is a growing believe that  short variety  hypertonic  arms are easier  to  develop  as  compared  to  the development of  hypersonic  weapons that holds the  capability  of a  complete reach  by the entire globe (Wall,& Cameron, 2016).  The development of hypersonic weapons is claimed to result in a long-term arms race between the super authority nations that are currently engaged.  In addition, there is a huge threat to the development of missiles by Russia and china before the United States. This is because their   project is based on undermining the general power that is held by the United States. In addition, this may result in destruction and a fall of the military power that is held by the three nations.  This will thus result in the cold war as well as violence and the rise of terrorism will rise highly (Wall,& Cameron, 2016).

The world’s strongest powers are currently locked in an invisible struggle in developing killer weapons and thus there are growing claims that the struggle will result in the humanity devastation.  The weapons are bound to cause security as well as the destruction of masses (Wall, & Cameron, 2016).  The race is currently being led by the United States whose attempts in developing the weapons have proved to yield more success as compared to the two nations.   The race is currently being led by America based on its global military and economic dominance.  However, the position of the united states  in the  transforming  technology weapons  field  in the context of  developing military  arms  has encouraged  an escalation  that is dangerous  that is being led by  china and Russia.  This is a human race  that  has accumulated a technological amount that  is considerable  which holds  a high capability  of  drastically changing  the  general states warfare in the following  decade.  This is an inclusion of military weapons and it is an initial sign stating that arms robotic race is beginning and this can clearly be seen through the association of the United States-China as well as Russia.  This  is an invisible war  that    has  for  years been occurring  in the weapons laboratories  and the success of the projects are  only shown during  illuminated  drones  festive events (Wall,& Cameron, 2016).

Currently,  America utilizes approximately 70  billion dollars  on the  development  and research of  weapons   more  than  its primary competitors  globally  even when they are combined.  This, therefore, shows the general seriousness of the whole matter (Wall, 2016).  Since the development began up to now the United States has continuously relied on two primary deterrence approaches.  This includes the utilization of nuclear weapons as well as directed precision munitions that are supported by the defense of the missile shield.  The United States is already making consideration of utilization of military robots in the provision of military services in order to reduce the military forces.  However, the state is currently conducting an investigation of the matter in order to establish the complexity of the matter and how the anticipated risks and challenges can be handled.  The state considers this as a serious and a sensitive matter that cannot work based on experiment and therefore it requires more practical ideas and ground (Wall, 2016). 

The weapons that are  currently being developed by the three super authority nations  will utilize sea, land as well as  the sky as the  means of traveling to strike the enemy (Wall, 2016).  The weapons are however objected at developing less destruction than those that have been used previously.  This is mainly because  they are expected to generate safety to everyone who is involved  and not  destroy resources that   have consumed  much time and resources to build the primary  emerging section that is  currently being led  by  united  kingdom and united states  is drones development or  all other arms that  can fully  be  printed with the utilization of 3D machines  which are installed  in  ships or different bases.  The fresh military technology is resulting in the emergence of the arms race and this development may result in a disturbance of the current power balance, global insecurity instability, and intensification of conflict in the global environment (Wall, 2016).

The United States military information holds that the competition that is being raised by Russia and china is not a threat (Sphigel, 2016).   The nation stated that it is clear so far in the context of arms development that the technological, scientific, as well as the economic leadership of the state, is one that cannot be contested.  Russia and china are however not convinced with these claims and they are currently attempting to copy some of the strategies that are utilized by America in maintaining the leading position.  The Russian military has adopted a target program in the procedure of developing machines that are not currently named in the nature of the military robotic system. The complexity of the application of the machine's application has been declared as a major priority by the state.  The confidentiality of Russia participating in the arms race development has   remained unclear but based on the current arms testing this is a clear demonstration of undeclared participation in the arms competition (Sphigel, 2016).

Currently, the arms race can be described as a supremacy competition in the warfare of nuclear that is occurring amid the United States and the Soviet Union as well as all the respective companies of the cold war (Chatterji, Bo, Misra, & Isard, 2011). In the growing signs of an occurrence of cold war chin is currently involved in the development of a collection of aggressive and self-justifying weapons in preparation of a hypothetical disagreement with America. in the few recent months, there  has been a growing tension between the three  supreme states which  is currently in  a new  and  in a  very high height.  In the context of china’s south sea Beijing as well as Washington states are the current artificial islands construction loggerheads.  This is because the United States holds the concern that china in its construction was fully attempting to establish an air section to offer it defense.  The eastern sea presents Beijing and Tokyo as the primary odds based   on the construction of Senakkau highland (Chatterji, Bo, Misra, & Isard, 2011). This is a party conflict that is being influenced by the pressure that is given by the United States to all its allies into being very careful with the developing influence of Chinese state.  It has  thus been   noted  recently that  china has been  continuously involved  in  missiles  stocking for  years  based on the fear of the united states aggression move.  The ballistic missiles that are being developed by  Beijing  are growing  slowly  and currently  the  missiles  that it has developed holds the capability  of  transporting  nuclear  payloads (Chatterji, Bo, Misra, & Isard, 2011).

In addition,  Beijing has  been involved in  a secret  development  of  a powerful hypersonic missile  that is  called the DF-ZF vehicle glide which works through the ascending  of the atmospheric upper section  in the quest of  bypassing  all the protection antimissile  organizations (Schoen, & Kaylan, 2014). Beijing is currently developing its missiles defenses because the United States is working on deploying a high attitude defense terminal. Developing  suitable and  capable  defense arms is a  requirement  for China and Russia  in order to  maintain  its  state’s  security as well as develop  its  general  defense  capabilities. in addition, the quest of the two-state to  dominate over the united states requires more military  efforts  as  the united states  have achieved so  much currently (Schoen, & Kaylan, 2014).  The nations have to be willing to spend even more because the military technology is an investment that requires more resources and finances.  The states must, therefore, develop technological defense as well as the economy simultaneously because of the ability to offer adequate power lies on resources (Schoen, & Kaylan, 2014).

Despite the fact that china has continuously engaged in secret arms development, in the recent Beijing is transforming to publicity in regard to missiles abilities (Rosenburg, & Markoff, 2016).  As intended, American has already   taken its general course.  the escalation  between the three states is not bound to end soon because  all the  states  are fully  interested  in authority  and  military  power   dominance.  This, therefore, implies that the arms race cannot be evicted.  Despite the fact that a cold war may occur this does not seem to be an issue as the primary issue is when the problem is bound to happen (Rosenburg, & Markoff, 2016).

With  the  association of China and Russia in order to work against  the united  states,  the nation has  developed a fresh technological weapon that is aimed at handling  the weapons threat that  the two  nations subjects.  The United States has thus developed very high ultra-pace missiles. The united stated forces have stated that this utilizes more than 71 billion weapons development and research (Rosenburg, & Markoff, 2016).  The nations are currently funding   fresh hypersonic weapons that hold the capability of flying for more than five times in regard to the speed that is traveled by sound.

Russia has made the emphasis that nuclear weapons serves a central function in the provision of state security (Sphigel, 2016).  This is despite the fact that it is currently experiencing a financial budget shortage.  Russia is currently trying to increase its general nuclear weapons investment by upgrading and modernizing those that it has.  The state is, therefore, making preparations to introduce nuclear weapons liquid fuel that holds less survivability and has an offensive power of firing.  It has been involved  in several  military practices  which  involve  nuclear  weapons, frequency increase and  a strategic  geographical scope (Sphigel, 2016).  This development is considered by the western nations as a death threat.  This is mainly because the weapons are characterized by the high power that may result in a disruption of power. However, the United States is said to be focusing on the development of nuclear weapons characterized more usability and flexibility.  The state plans on the application of the weapons in fewer wars to increase the general flexibility.  The state is currently in a critical situation as it is expected to make decisions on how it shall upgrade the next development generation. This has resulted  in  the interpretation by western  nations and the united states that  the effort that is put by Russia in developing nuclear weapons are more based on generating an arms nuclear  expansion.  Russia has thus   released that it holds less military strength and in turn, it is relying on arms deterrent.  The strategic interests of the three states are thus different based on their distinct needs.  China is using its rapid growth to copy and take advantage of the United States to overtake it.  Russia is mainly motivated by its existing security dilemma based on the fact that it has less support (Sphigel, 2016).

Hypersonic weapons are presented as  the technology cutting edge  and the involved missiles by the three nations  are objected  at traveling in the border that exist between  air and the space of Mach 5 as well as Mach 10 which is approximately more than 3800 miles.  The weapons are currently presenting increased engineering challenges based on the issues that are linked to high-speed fighting.  In addition, the ability to develop equipment that can overcome increased speed that is caused by high-speed friction is a challenge (Rosenburg, & Markoff, 2016).

The development of china missiles is said to be capable of defeating missiles and air that are growly being deployed across the world (Schoen, & Kaylan, 2014).  Russia is currently  creating  hypersonic  arms  that hold  high  element  priority  of  large scale that is developed  by Moscow of both  nuclear and forces that are conventional.  Officials in Russia made the statement that the arms will be utilized in ensuring that a defeat against the United States defenses arms is achieved. It is true that hypersonic weapons give benefits in four different areas for the combat forces in the United States.   The missiles have the capability of striking authority at a high range without the occurrence of victim falls thus increasing the sophistication of defenses.  This helps in the creation of fresh opportunities thus enhancing future operations for the states (Schoen, & Kaylan, 2014).

The rapid missile's development is argued to result in different negative effects in the near future for the nations involved as well as the global security (Boyle, 2015).  Based on the threat that is being promoted by Russia and china’s hypersonic development it is clear that the United States is not ready to lose the growing competition.  The developments of the arms will result in high risks towards the land-sea as well as the air.  The three nations have currently been silent on what they are engaging in. there seemed to be a resolution of the major dispute that occurred in regard to nuclear missiles intermediate in 1987 in Europe.  However, there is a rise of arms disagreement that is occurring between Russia, China, and the United States because all the states want to be in domination.  Russia and china are working together in order to win and defeat the United States which has long been in domination. This poses an acute threat which cannot be overcome easily unless the strategic intentions are aligned together. However, this cannot be achieved because Russia and china claim that the United States will weaken their ability to achieve that what they want (Boyle, 2015).

The conflict between the three supreme states has not been declared publicly but it is blazing their association slowly. The relationship between America, China and Russia is becoming increasingly hostile in the recent years (Walton, & Gray, 2013). It is clear  if the  three involved nations are not  careful about their  actions  the  issue of  nuclear warheads and arms  quarrel that has been forgotten for a while  now will be back  soon in Europe.  This will result in the immeasurable destruction of humanity and global security.   The race of arms is portraying a major agreement of disarmament and based on the perception of the European states this is perhaps the most significant deal at all times.  It has for long been claimed that Russia is continuously violating the nuclear forces middle range agreement.  Those in Washington have continuously stated that their nations cannot watch as Russia violates the agreement (Walton, & Gray, 2013).

The ongoing arms race is a denotation of a high increase in the number and quality of military authority instruments by the rivaling states (Rosefielde, 2004).  The initial arms race occurred when France and Russia were involved in challenging Britain’s naval superiority in the 19th century. Building up the arms far is bound to be characterized by n occurrence of the cold war as well as global destruction on security.  The three states are currently leading in terms of economic and military development. An occurrence of conflict between the states will generally affect relationship wellness as well as innovation. Most interpretation holds that Russia is in the wrong as it is using the race wrong and for the wrong objective.  Russia is thus unable to deny that it holds aggressive ambitions against American and that is the reason why it has formed an association with china which has similar interests (Rosefielde, 2004).

It is argued that the United States is mainly focused on maintaining its unilateralism position through the development of weapons as it feels that al-Qaida and additional groups are a threat to its development objectives (Chatterji, Bo, Misra, & Isard, 2011).  However, the state is mainly focused on generating safety more than protecting its position. In this, Russia and China feel that they are not incorporated because they are focused on occupying the power state position. China and Russia are both aligning themselves together because they hold the sensation of feeling threatened by the unilateralism of United States. Russia, china, as well as America, are a representation of the most popular, geographically huge, economically authoritative as well as military important nation in the world’s history.  This alliance is bound to undermine the American power globally which is not ultimate for the American nation (Chatterji, Bo, Misra, & Isard, 2011).

Conclusion

            It is clear that China, United States, and Russia are engaged in a race or arms. The three nations   hold similar and differing objectives which are causing major divisions.  Russia and China aligned are based on the sensation threat that the United States is working on maintaining its unilateralism position through developing weapons.  The competition between the three states may not be avoided since they are among the most power nations and thus they cannot abandon their economic, technological and military development strategies. It is obvious that the development of the arms race will result in global effects as the states are the most authoritative.  The arms race is a major threat to the wellness of the three states and the race is stirred mainly by state’s personal desires. The alignment of Russia and China is thus expected to undermine the authority of the United States as a power state.

                                                                  References

Boyle, M. J. (2015). The race for drones. Orbis, 59(1), 76-94.

Chatterji, M., Bo, C., Misra, R. P., & Isard, W. (2011). Frontiers of peace economics and peace   science. Bingley, U.K: Emerald.

Door T. (2016). Neo-Nuclear Arms Race, NY Times. Retrieved from           http://imgur.com/gallery/lBze6

James, C. (2015). Postwar America: An Encyclopedia of Social, Political, Cultural, and   Economic History. Routledge. Print.

Johnson-Freese, J. (2009). Heavenly ambitions: America's quest to dominate space. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lewis A. Owen, Professor Kevin T Pickering. (2006). an Introduction to Global Environmental Issues. Routledge. Print.

Roberts, B. (2016). The case for U.S. nuclear weapons in the 21st century. Stanford University Press.

Rosefielde, S. (2004). Russia in the 21st century: The prodigal superpower. Cambridge: Cambridge             University Press.

Rosenburg, M. & Markoff, J. (2016). The Pentagon’s ‘Terminator Conundrum’: Robots That       Could Kill on Their Own .Retrieved from            http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/26/us/pentagon-artificial-intelligence-            terminator.html?_r=0

Schoen, D. E., & Kaylan, M. (2014). The Russia-China axis: The new cold war and America's     crisis of leadership.

Schoen, D., & Kaylan, M. (2014). The Russia-China axis: The new Cold War and America's        crisis of leadership. Encounter Books.

Seedhouse, E. (2010). The new space race: China vs. the United States. Chichester: Praxis Pub.

Sharma, A. (2011). Asia's New Arms Race. Retrieved from             http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704881304576094173297995198

Singer, P. W., & Cole, A. (2015). Ghost fleet: A novel of the next world war. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Sphigel, B. (2016). Keeping Ahead in Arms Race for the Perfect Wheelchair. Retrieved from             http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/10/sports/olympics/in-wheelchair-basketball-an-arms-   race-for-the-perfect-sit.html

Wall, R. & Cameron, D. (2016). Chinese Military Spending, Ambitions Fuel Asian Arms Race,    Studies Say. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-military-spending-      ambitions-fuel-asian-arms-race-studies-say-1456095661

Wall, R. (2016). World Big Spending on Warplanes Spurs Aerial Arms Race. Retrieved from             http://www.wsj.com/articles/big-spending-on-warplanes-spurs-aerial-arms-race-     1474824362

Walton, C. D., & Gray, C. S. (2013). The Geopolitics of Strategic Stability: Looking Beyond       Cold Warriors and Nuclear Weapons. Strategic Stability: Contending Interpretations, 85-         15.

William J Broad & David E Sanger. (2016). Race for latest N-arms threatens to revive cold war. Retrieved from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/Race-for-latest-N-arms-   threatens-to-    revive-cold-war/articleshow/51871263.cms

William J. Broad & David E. Sanger. (2016). As U.S. Modernizes Nuclear Weapons, ‘Smaller’    Leaves Some Uneasy. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/12/science/as-us-           modernizes-nuclear-weapons-smaller-leaves-some-uneasy.html

SRC 12 Army Units

            SRC 12 is defined as the Standard Requirement Code of the US army.  It shows that the organization makeup policy needs a code of 12 units.  The organization’s personnel services were designed for the operation tempo of the universal war on terrorism.  This was an impact of the army authorizing modularity along with the instruction that the HR community would deactivate all the information above the company level.  The mission of the organization was that during the army alteration and modularity, the HR went from an inheritance stovepipe structure to an SRC force structure that included the personnel services and delivery.  This was seen as a helpful mission for the team centric army (Masley & Army War College, 2011).   

The senior army commanders, the commanding sergeants and the staff had a meeting at the U.S army commanders’ office so that they could focus on the readiness of the whole army force.  Their aim was to maximize the unit willingness and the total army force policy which was on debate that was set up by the army proposals and the future chances. The army proposals include the decreasing of the number of soldiers who were unable to install or specific reasons as they tried to improve the consistency of the training of the army in the whole force.  This helped them in maintaining the issues and the excessive devices which was the biggest challenge to the army (Masley & Army War College, 2011). 

            With the src12, their wish was to expand across the whole region of the United States army so that they could be able to represent it on their future challenges.  There can also be a future war evolution and some changes that are likely to take place by the mid century which will be focusing on the possible conditions that the American army could face across the universe from 2025.  This is likely to be followed by essential transformations in the character of the ground fighting (Masley & Army War College, 2011). 

Reference

Masley, M. E., & Army War College (U.S.). (2011). Human Resources: PSDR five years later. Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College.

Generations

Change in political events has mainly been affected by different generations, simply because each and every generation change the way of rule, and thus leading to the turn of political events. For instance, the baby boomers, who were born after the World War II, came up with different ways of exercising politics. The approach that they used was against that of their parents and that of their grandparents (Craig & Bernett, 23). This therefore saw the turn of political events since baby boomers were quiet and they exercised their political roles in the very unique ways possible thus making their elders to worry about the leadership that had been brought to the universe. Baby boomers were often referred to as the silent ones, simply because they were very intelligent and educated. This gave them the powers to speak whenever they felt the need to do so and thus challenging the ruling and the governing authorities in the country. Moreover, baby boomers seemed to be more attracted to violence since the only option they could use in order to make sure that they air their grievances was through violence.

On the other hand, Generation x seemed to be a different lot which was mainly concerned with their desires ad not that of others. This therefore meant that they would do anything in order to be hard even if it meant holding deadly demonstrations against the government. Moreover, they had no specific direction in which they were heading (Craig & Bernett, 34). This consequently meant that they could only work according to the way the events favoured them. If the events were not moving according to the way they wanted, then they had to go against it and thus leaving the country in chaos.

Work Cited

Craig, Stephen C. Stepehen E, Bernett. After the Boom: The Politics of Generation X.

Introduction to American Politics  

Trust in the American political system. 

Introduction

For many years, there has been a decline in the trust of the U.S government. Focusing back in 1964, only three-quarters of the citizens in U.S revealed that they have trust in federal government.  Since then, the number has declined following that in modern America; only quarter of U.S citizens can reveal their trust. Various studies have shown that the cause of distrust is as a result of inefficiency and lack of effective planning on government resources.  Citizens argue that the government is poor in measuring performance and they are dissatisfied with the social outcomes. In order to solve the issue facing federal, local and State government, it is important to understand the federal system play a great role in balancing power.  Since the development of American federalism, the federal government has increased its power and it has shown its responsiveness in the national economy. Generally, federal government should have more power and U.S citizens should have a higher level of trust following that in modern America, cooperative federalism share power and policies and creates a dynamic framework to value the America society.

 Federal system distributes its powers to the central and state government   in the political system.  For example, the central government in federal system exercises authority with full sovereignty. The U.S government has the power over the interstate among other roles. Every State in America is given a unique form of government and the national interest is valued in the national government.  The latter play a great role of solving issues which arise from the different States.  In domestic policy, the overlapping interests lead to conflict between centre and state government and this affects the lives of citizens (Nye, 1).  In order to elimination the conflict in the concurrent powers, the federal courts made the U.S constitution to become the supreme power and state were restricted in exercising the central government powers. In creating nation, the founding fathers faced challenges in trying to separate the power between State and central government. The foundation fathers supported the Bill of Right and restricted the interference of national government to the individual liberties. At this point, federalism was invented and acted as the sovereignty and power to rule (Nye, 5).  Since then, federalism brought significant changes in U.S and the division of power led to dramatic change in law and practice. The U.S constitution under the federal government provided a high level of preparedness to the nation. The federalism operation procedures concentrated on shared costs, shared administration and other national interest programs such as improvement of local infrastructure, highways and airports.  It is important to note that federalism holds important principles such as separation of power which play a role in creating a democratic government (Nye, 8).

Federalism provides decentralized policies which solve all local issues. The important thing to note is that for many years, Americans have faced challenges as a result of centralized power. Thus, the division of power acted as the solution toward issues like liberty (Eder, 34). The decentralizing power solves geographical issues such as ethnic religious, culture, social and economic issues. The principles of federal government are integrated in the politics and government where office-holders get the opportunity to understand the democratic society hence creating government and citizens’ relation (Eder, 38). In addition, federal government includes the interest group in decision making. It creates a health democratic where the government is able to solve with economic and social issues.

Pluralism theory clearly explains the federal government and its important role in protecting the citizens and the community. The theory focuses on predominant power in the political arena. Pluralism is associated with free-market ecponomy where voters are given the control and the government becomes neutral in national interest (Domhoff, 1). Public opinion is rooted from citizens and voluntary group or else there is a connection between public opinion and the federal government. Interest groups express their economic interests and shared power. The important thing with this theory is that the immaterial power is distributed to social contract and no one should rule over the social contract. The Pluralism view is based on the ideology that the legislative outcome is determined by the public opinion. The theory presents the notion that U.S requires pluralism democracy where there should be a decentralized power and separation of power (Domhoff, 1). Pluralism theory presents the features of a decentralized democracy which includes federalism, the electoral system, division of power and a bicameral Congress. Other theory which applies in federal system is the state autonomy theory. The theory states that the government is the power center, it is an independent force and it has the military control. The government in this case has a legitimate power, has the power to protect the nation and to regulate taxes. The theory concentrates on the state interests and the state leaders ensures a healthy capitalism. In addition, the autonomy creates a corporate dominance and provides power to the state office hence developing the federal government (Domhoff, 1).

Conclusion

The federal government in U.S play a significantly role in defending the nation and meeting the national interest. It has a decentralized power which controls the state. Focusing on the three branches, each branch plays an important role in ensuring that citizens are controlled with a decentralized power. The important point is that the federal government creates a balanced power and monitors the way in which the state laws solve the issues facing the citizens. The states autonomy theory explains the role of federal government and asserts that community enjoys the security and rights. In other words, autonomy is a political culture where all individuals should live an autonomous life. In addition, the pluralism theory concentrates on the federal government and its role in creating a democracy nation. It asserts that the federal government should have decentralized features through electoral system, separation of powers, bicameralism.

Work cited

Domhoff G. William. Who Rules  America? Sociology Department,. University of California at Santa 

Cruz.2015

Eder, Christina, Ingvill C. Mochmann, and Markus Quandt. Political Trust and Disenchantment with

Politics: International Perspectives. , 2015. Internet resource.

Nye, Joseph S. Why People Don't Trust Government. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1997.

Print.

Immigration

50 Years Ago, Immigration Changed in America by Kenneth

Immigration is one of the most discussed topics especially in the United States presidential campaigns with some controversies whether to adopt the millions of immigrants who are in the US illegally. There exist some controversies whether to build a wall which will separate Mexico and US in order to prevent immigrants from getting in to the US. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 gave way for the immigrant families to reunite and ensured that skilled workers came to America mostly from Europe (Walsh, 1). Over the past few years immigrants from Latin America and Asia have flocked in to America making Americans complain since the population is increasing. This interferes with the environment since the population ensures the environment resources are overexploited and this strains the environment. This immigration act has had some consequences in America since the population of Black Americans and Asians is on the increase. Most of the whites are now insecure since the non white population is increasing immensely and thus most whites are not comfortable with this trend since they think that the non whites will take over their place. Most of the whites are condemning immigration especially illegal migration from Mexico since it contributes to social problems (Walsh, 1). Illegal migration has been attributed with social problems such as crimes based on this article and thus most Americans condemn this illegal migration. This immigration act was initiated so that it would eliminate racism but has brought some consequences since it has increased problems instead of solving most of the problems. The immigration act should be amended so that it can come up with policies that will ensure only legal immigration takes place.

Americans really don’t like immigration by Peter

According to interview carried out, 60% of the Americans believe that immigration is jeopardizing the economy of the United States (Peter, 1). This article shows that most Americans condemn illegal immigration but legal immigration is not condemned by the people including leaders. Baby boomers are the highest population that believes that immigration jeopardizes the United States while the old people come last. Most of the educated people believe that immigration is jeopardizing the United States thus people are not comfortable with this immigration issue. Most of the people think that immigration causes problems instead of actually helping the US thus most of the Americans do not support immigration (Peter, 1). Most Americans are not confident with the Americas state of economy since immigration is said to interfere with the economy of the state. Most people associate immigration with negatives since illegal immigration especially causes social problems in the United States. Most Americans do not support legal or illegal immigration since they associate it with problems. Most Americans think that immigration will ensure that their place is taken by the increasing numbers of Latin Americans, Africans and Asians immigrants. Americans advocate for the decrease in the levels of immigration since the current trend is increasing large numbers of non whites in America (Peter, 1). Currently, Americans are fighting immigration more compared to the past few years therefore showing that the current generation is uncomfortable with the increasing numbers of immigrants in the country. The issue of immigration is one of the fore most things that Americans want the government to address currently as compared to the past years. This article therefore explains that Americans do not encourage immigration and are against the issue.

Mexican Immigrants in the United States by Jie & Jeanne

In recent years the number of Mexican immigrants in the United States is still stable. In 2014, approximately 12 million immigrants from Mexico settled in the US, about 30 percent of the overseas born population that accounts to around 50 million. The number is by far the biggest migrant population in the country (Jie & Jeanne, 1). This article explains that in the years 2006 and 2010 the numbers of immigrants increased by over 2000000. Mexico is no longer the major country with the highest numbers of immigrants since India and China from 2013 overtook Mexico. These two countries have the highest numbers of immigrants who have stayed in the US for over one year. The great recession which happened in periods of years 2007 to 2009 saw many immigrants migrate back to Mexico therefore reducing the population of Mexican immigrants in the US (Jie & Jeanne, 1). Most Mexican immigrants went back to Mexico because of a number of reasons. The Mexican economy improved while there were reduced job opportunities in the US which ensured that Mexicans went back to their country. The rate of births in Mexico declined which paved ways for Mexicans to go back to their country. Most of the Mexican immigrants who live in the US have low incomes and have less education compared to the Americans which shows that the immigrants are disadvantaged compared to the Americans (Jie & Jeanne, 1). Mexican immigrants have less chances of being American citizens compared to other immigrants’ population indicating that most of the Mexican immigrants are disadvantaged. In 2014, most of the Mexican immigrants had less chances of getting health assurance compared to other immigrants (Jie & Jeanne, 1). Therefore this article shows that the level of Mexican immigrants is decreasing in America since the conditions in Mexico are becoming better.

U.S. Immigration Policy: Enforcement & Deportation Trump Fair Hearings--Systematic Violations of International Non-Refoulement Obligations Regarding Refugees. By Oakes

In the near past there has been a surge in unaccompanied as well as undocumented children in the Mexico and United States border. All the undocumented children have heightened so many multifaceted issues that highly concern the US immigration policy and laws (Oakes, 840). The illuminated crisis has brought about a lot of divineness that relates to lots of assumptions in the United States populations as well as politicians have so many issues concerning the undocumented immigrants trying so hard to gain entrance into the United States through the boarder. A high percentage of the American population generally assumes that most of the immigrants getting into US are trying to find better economic opportunities. Despite the assumptions that most of the immigrants are economic refugees the US has no legal obligation or policy that offers the immigrants’ refuge on the grounds stated (Oakes, 912). There is also a large number of immigrants that presents themselves each day at the border includes even unaccompanied minors who are not just economic migrants but individuals who are escaping from the ever increased warfare in the Central America. The migrants from warfare are searching for lawful claims for refuge under the international as well as US refugee laws. US have no obligation under the international laws to grant refuge. Trump highlighted a dismal picture of illegal immigrants into the US. Trump in his campaign trail talked of families and victims of so many crimes that have been orchestrated by illegal Immigrants in the US. As much as half of the republicans agreed with Trump and are more than willing to see the illegal immigrants deported back to their original lands.

The ideology of unrestricted immigration by Williamson & Chilton

There is no clear answer as to whether the US should allow immigration to happen in the country. The national government only answers how many immigrants and from where so instead of explaining whether immigration is encouraged or not. Most Americans think that immigration is undesirable and is not even necessary and thus Americans are not for the idea (Williamson & Chilton, 23). Most of the immigrants allowed during the past years included people from Europe who provided cheap and skilled labor in America. Therefore immigration was of beneficial to America before immigrants from other continents came up and increased the population instead of actually helping the American economy. The progressive movement however advocated for restrictions on immigration since many immigrants came to America and caused strain on the environmental resources. Immigration according to this article has never brought prosperity to the United States and therefore citizens advocate for restrictions of immigration to take place (Williamson & Chilton, 26). Just like other nations have suffered from immigration, unite states cannot be exceptional since the immigrants invade the country. Through ideological thinking immigration is not necessary since it is seen to bring more problems instead of actually benefiting the countries. Though immigration is seen to promote cultural diversity nations and especially Americans still do not support this immigration since it is not of beneficial to them.

Work cited

Walsh, Kenneth. 50 Years Ago, Immigration Changed in America (2015) Retrieved from             http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/10/02/50-years-ago-immigration-changed-in- america 

Coy,  Peter.  Americans really don’t like immigration (2016) Retrieved from             http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-07/americans-really-don-t-like-            immigration-new-survey-finds

Zong J & Batalova J. Mexican Immigrants in the United States (2016) Retrieved from             http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states

Oakes, Jacob. "U.S. Immigration Policy: Enforcement & Deportation Trump Fair Hearings--        Systematic Violations Of International Non-Refoulement Obligations Regarding         Refugees." North Carolina Journal Of International Law & Commercial Regulation 41.4           (2016): 833-918. Business Source Complete. Web. 15 Nov. 2016.

Williamson Jr., Chilton. "The Ideology Of Unrestricted Immigration." Modern Age 58.3 (2016): 19-28. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Nov. 2016.

INTEGRATED INTELLIGENCE

Week 6 Discussion 1

The role of our organization in Intelligence and Counterterrorism is to offer recovery efforts for a disaster in order to mitigate the effect of terror attacks that has occurred. It is different in its own way in that it puts in a lot of effort by providing support to the affected as well as providing the local and state government with specialized information on various fields (Berntsen, 2008). I am aware of the role of the agency as its primary role is to coordinate the response of the disaster that has occurred in order to offer relief to local and state authority resources. Intelligence and counterintelligence are important to Homeland Security in that it helps in prevention of impending terror attack that saves the lives of the civilian and the state at large (Berntsen, 2008). This is important because they act on intelligence information that can be considered to be highly secretive thus it is scarce.

Week 6 Discussion 2

The biggest concern of nuclear and chemical as weapons of mass destruction is the significant effect it has as it can kill thousands and destroy all man-made structures. The biological used is harmful to humans as it destroys the natural structure and the biosphere that most human relates to (Kort, 2010). As a leader of a terrorist attack, the constraining factors of the weapons are the have that can last for years especially in the nuclear case and chemical explosive. Another constraining factor is the evolution of the weapons. The constraints are a deterrent as in the evolution because the super power states have been able to come up with more superior weapons that can easily suppress what the terror group is using (Kort, 2010). The effects of the weapons can last for many years which also affect the terror group thus resulting to ineffectiveness.

Reference

Berntsen, G. (2008). Human intelligence, counterterrorism & national leadership: A practical guide. Washington, D.C: Potomac Books.

Kort, M. (2010). Weapons of mass destruction. New York: Facts on File.

The Evolution of Anti-Americanism in Korea

Summary

            The article highlights that Anti-Americanism started in 1980 during and after the Gwagju uprising. The Principle struggles that followed brought about two unlike groups of advocates which are the Equality and the Self Reliance Faction (Young, p178). This shows the meaning of the newly formed anti-American social systems and a transformation of the strategy on the part of United States also. The article put emphasis on the strategy plans of distinguishing between both camps of social advocates (Young, p188).

            The article stresses that the policy makers of the United States have to be eagerly alert on the issue of whether anti-Americanism will rise or become extinct depends highly on a exact understanding of changes in Korea. These revolutions involve the character and effects of political and social changes and policy decisions of Korea that get an understanding of that kind into concern (Young, p193). It also stresses that the improved Korea-U.S. associations would contribute to the benefit of the two states and supports both local and international stability and tranquility. This means that both nations should combine effort to lessen anti-Americanism in Korea. This can be achieved through the understanding of United States by considering their origin, political implications and nature (Young, p194).

            The article shows that in 2004, many Koreans waged anti-American demonstrations. This was to demand that Korean government stop dispatching its Troops to Iraq as they viewed the country to have been invaded unreasonably by the U.S (Young, p195). On seventeenth July 2005 which is the Korean Constitution Day many protesters called for American statue of General Douglas to be destroyed in the Western port city of Incheon. This was in the argument that if Americans had not interfered with the war then Koreans would have achieved unification. In conclusion, the emergence of the anti-Americanism has made it impossible for the two nations to promote regional and global stability (Young, p195).

Critical Arguments

            I agree that the two nations should alleviate their bilateral relations in order to ensure that there is peace and solidity. They can achieve this through lessening anti-Americanism and leveling over friction points at some levels in general. They should study and understand the origins of the anti-American carefully to help them look for a good solution (Young, p180).

            The other argument is that changes must be made and the representatives of the two nations should sit together and discuss the movement to find out what needs to be done. I agree that the two nations can work together if only they discuss the issue properly. They should ensure that they come up with a good understanding that equalizes them. This means that one nation should not be selfish and acquire more benefits than the other (Young, p182).

            In conclusion, the United States need to accurately and carefully understand the kind of and the results of Korean political and social changes as well as policy decisions that get an understanding of such kind into consideration. Americans should try to sit together with Koreans in order to find out what has made them to come up with such changes. This would greatly help them to come up with a solution if Koreans are willing to listen to them. It is important that they come up with a conclusion and understanding because they can work together to ensure harmony in both nations. They should work together without having disagreements as these will only bring losses rather than benefits to the two nations.

Works Cited

Young Park. The Evolution of Anti-Americanism in Korea: Policy Implications for the     United States. Korea Journal/ Winter 2007. P. 177-195.

George W. Bush

The invasion of Iraq War

Part I: Outline

Introduction

According to, Lexington, (2010), George W. Bush administration casted the Iraq war as a section of the general war to handle radicalism.  The argument by the president’s administration was that Iraq was involved in the creation of atomic and organic weapons thus leading to invasion. This paper will therefore seek to establish whether the decision making qualities of George W. Bush on Iraq’s invasion were satisfactory.

George W. Bush Decision Making Qualities

The decision making qualities of George W. Bush can only be termed through the Iraq war.  This is termed as his individual war because he made the decision of invasion.  The war demonstrates him as a solution giver and a person that is not characterized by doubts.   When the issue of weapons generation was determined he gave a solution through a consideration of several aspects although not everything that he should have considered.

An Examination of Whether George W. Bush Iraq Invasion Decision Was Satisfactory

The invasion was aimed at stopping the production of destructive weapons. This decision by the president resulted in the development of a stable state of Iraq.  

Conclusion

The decision to invade Iraq was not baseless as it was based on issues identification.  Weapons generation would have resulted in mass destruction and as the United States president he had to act by utilizing his power.  The invasion involved different risks and the challenges outweigh the generated benefits.

            Part II: Bibliography

Lexington, L. (2010). Decision to invade Iraq. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/blogs/lexington/2010/10/decision_invade_iraq

            The rationales and decision of invading Iraq, the satisfactory of the decision, and how the invasion made history.

Wintour, P. & Bowcott, O. (2016). Circumstances Of Decisions To Invade Iraq Were Far From Satisfactory. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/chilcot-circumstances-of-decision-to-invade-iraq-far-from-satisfactory-tony-blair

            From what perspective is the Iraq war invasion decision considered unsatisfactory, from what ground were the decisions made and what qualities did George W. Bush utilize in developing the particular decisions.

Alex Mintz, Karl DeRouen Jr. (2010). Understanding Foreign Policy Decision Making. Cambridge University Press

            Why the president’s administration opted to invade Iraq, why the administration felt that the production of weapons would result in mass destruction thus opting to solve the issue.

Jane K. Cramer & Trevor A. Thrall. Why Did the United States Invade Iraq? Routledge. Print.

            The rationale behind the invasion of United States in Iraq, the expected outcome of the war and the generated benefits that were attained from the war