The final blog entry in this course is dedicated to our
class debate on what was the greatest threat to U.S. power. My initial thought
was that the main threat surely must represent a large umbrella that covered
multiple threats, which in the right combination and timing, could indeed push
the United States of America into joining the ranks of those great powers that
went before into drastic decline. I would say that threats vary greatly;
depending on the ideas and interests of a country and its people.
I was part of Team 4. We chose cyber terrorism as
the largest threat against U.S. hegemonic power. While I don't believe that
cyber terrorism (alone) is a threat to U.S. power, I do believe that a cyber-attack
by a non-state actor would turn into an unprecedented security threat for the
U.S. We are living in an internet-determined world order where conflict, cooperation and strategy are all inevitably tied to individual or group applications of IT. Cyber war capacities are no longer the domain of only big guns like China and the U.S. They are spreading horizontally to middle and even minor powers; including non-state actors. In fact, today non-state actors have the ability to launch cyber-attacks against their enemy without much repercussion. Cyber terrorism is a threat to U.S. power because it is our greatest immediate vulnerability and if an enemy state or non-state actor wanted to offset the current balance of power they would most likely come up with a less predictable preemptive strategy such as attacking our online databases.
It was a delight to have different perspectives debated. One realization was the importance of being able to debate for the sake of debate, as it certainly was an acquired skill set. Each team had good arguments and let open some loopholes, which is expected considering the time constraint. An interesting observation for me was to see how each threat that the teams’ came up with had valid (and sometimes concerning) points. I think it brought full circle what we have been learning all semester - and that is simply that your perception of global affairs is strongly influenced and determined by the school of thought that you tend to fall into.
Fatima,
ReplyDeleteYou raise an interesting point regarding the criteria of what constitutes the "biggest threat". Many of the groups focused on loss of human life or exploitation of security weaknesses as a determinant of threat, however your comment at the end of your first paragraph shifts that paradigm. It is not just "what has the biggest impact in the moment?" but "what can we never truly recover from?".
I like that you tie things back to the schools of thought. We have discussed a multitude of world events and foreign policy as part of learning international theory. I think I entered the course as a realist and have come out as an institutionalist with a constructivist bent (what a mess). Ultimately, these theories definitely inform our view of the world and how we assess world events.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Ben's comment above - what a mess! I think I entered as a realist and have come out as an I-don't-know-I'm-so-confused. Which is kind of the point, as the more we think about things the more we realize how complicated they are. But Fatima, you bring up a great point of how the lens we're looking through changes what we see. Four different groups, all composed of students completing the same course on international theory, came up with very distinct threats to U.S. global power.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that the biggest threat does not necessarily mean the threat that would take the most human life is a very interesting one. After all, the world once lost a third of its population to illness, and we seem to have bounced back. It certainly gives the idea that cyber terrorism could be even more devastating than I initially thought.
ReplyDelete