The global security structure - Essay Example

Whereas the previous era was defined by hard targets and the means through which terrorists could affect physical damage upon a given state via the use of explosives and/or other traditional forms of violence, policy makers and governmental entities have come to place cyber-terrorism as equally important as WMDs and the use of other conventional weapons, due to the disastrous impacts that it can have on a nation’s economy. Threats to cyber-security, from the perspective of the United States, primarily originate from Russia, China, and aspects of organized crime throughout the world up to and including terrorist groups.

Classical realism and an approach to security: • The survival of the state is dependent upon its ability to organize and control its military as a means of defending its territory. Even though national interests can be compared, no two states can have the same national interest. As a direct function of the rationale and understanding of why conflict merges can clearly be seen. Security is the fundamental concern that any state has – more important than political ideology or other power motives As a means of preserving this security, military means are employed as the most powerful deterrents.

Implications of neorealism: For neorealists weapons and weapons systems are the most relevant indicators of the way in which power can be exerted and used to influence a situation. Implications of classical realists: Classical realists would likely point to two key shortcomings that neorealists have, namely the fact that it glosses over the role of choice for the individual actors, and the fact that it does not question the constraints or longevity of security structures. Changes to the global structure: The first major shift can be seen with regard to the way in which Pres.

Jimmy Carter tried to move United States foreign-policy from a realist perspective towards more of an idealist perspective. In such a way, the Helsinki Agreement along with other factors helped to promote a level of idealism and hope for the way in which the United States, and indeed the rest of the world, could integrate with. Another noted shift came with the Clinton administration. Due to the fact that the collapse of the Soviet Union had presented the United States with a drastically redefined world, Clinton and his entire staff were of the opinion that instead of acting in a unipolar way, or understanding the world in something of a bipolar matter, the United States would be much better served to engage with multilateral forces to include the WTO, the World Bank, the IMF, NAFTA, and NATO, not to mention the UN, as a means of effecting United States interests upon the rest of the world.

It almost goes without saying that the United States faces a definitive shift with regard to the Bush administration and specifically the events after September 11, 2001. As a result of the terrorist attack, President Bush shifted the United States policy back towards a unipolar interpretation of the world, and an idea that the United States should craft its own future based upon the inherent needs that the nation experiences, regardless of the ramifications or repercussions to other states/actors.

As further means of comparison, Pres. Obama has served as something of a mixture of three of his predecessors. Ultimately, Obama combines the unilateralism of Bush’