Missile Defense: Modernizing the Post Cold War era of Defense strategy
Great Military strength is one of the most appropriate descriptions of what constitutes Dominance, Influence and Recognition in the world of politics. This concept is the depiction of the common desire of States in protecting their respective territories and jurisdiction. It plays a major role in gaining recognition as a powerful entity existing within the sphere of World Politics. This is attributable to the fact that possession of such capability serves as a warning sign directed against others who may devise any plan of attack. By virtue of making such capability known to the international community, the particular State or country having such capability rises to the ranks of one of the most influential entity in the world sometimes referred to as political elites.
This is highly exemplified in the current World Politics which determine the relationship that exists among states today. Even the course of history is greatly affected by the decision of the political elites. These so-called Political Elites comprise of State leaders, Prime Ministers, President and Monarchs, all of which have respective power and influence to have an impact in the international community. This firmly attests to Ralph Waldo Emerson’s view that in foreign policy decision making and in world politics “there is no proper history, only biography”, highlighting the fact that leaders’ dominance and influence come into play when politics is concerned, and sometimes doing away with what really happened but focusing on who made it happen. This is the reason why leaders are oftentimes called the Makers and the Movers of world history. Leaders in the strictest sense of the world refer to those who possess a higher rank or simply put one who is followed by others. Analogously, in the International Community, becoming a leader means having the capacity to withstand pressure from other members of the international sphere and at the same time, possess a certain degree of assertiveness, manifesting its great influence among others.
Nowadays, what seemed to be impossible years ago can be created and re-created in just a matter of a few seconds. Modernization has become unstoppable to the point of no contentment. Development no longer meant innovations that could make lives easier and more comfortable. Technology has turned into a weapon of destruction, highly dependent on whose hands it may be of use.
National Missile Defense: Background and Creation
The United States has emerged victorious in various wars making it influential and looked upon by neighboring states as well as the whole international community. This status however, can be short-lived if the United States of America becomes lax and complacent regarding its place in the international sphere. This is the main reason why it has become a necessity to establish its power and influence.
The post cold war era became the focal point of the need to formulate and devise the right strategy, program and structure for defense purposes of the country. It may be true that there is no imminent threat to U.S but the importance of having such strategy is the gaining of that certain level of preparedness in the event a threat surfaces.
The main purpose of the creation of Missile Defense is for the early detection of threat by tracking targets.
Missile Defense: Politics’ Selective image using U.S a “yardstick”
Evolution in its every context is brought about by an agent acting against the usual and traditional systemic processes. As exemplified in the development of technology, more weapons are created not necessarily for destruction but for deterrence. The idea lies heavily on the fact that a State’s reputation in the International community becomes the basis of its degree of acceptance among member states.
This only goes to show that the means of change is expected to go against the existing order and challenge the contemporary schematic procedures. In this way, the status quo would be transformed into the concrete manifestation of the clamor introduced by the agent itself. This is to argue that in many ways, evolution is brought into reality by discontentment in the current order. That is, improvements are made available through the overt actuation of dissatisfaction and displeasure.
US supremacy, is manifested in its impact in the international community. It has created an image of being the “protector” of the oppressed. But in the world of politics, there is always the presence of desire for “self-preservation”. This is what is termed as Selective engagement. United States will continue to promote protection of innocents and civilians; however, it still seeks to protect itself, and when the time comes to pull back a little, as when geopolitically relevant countries are involved, the United States act in a non-intervention attitude for self-preservation. This is a natural act of every state in its objective to maintain its existence and even to widen its influence. As a result, the United States becomes “duty bound” to be ahead of everyone else in order to ensure its status as the “protector”. The only means to achieve this is through image building and projection of strength and influence in world politics. If United States continues to be ahead in technology, armaments and intelligence information, it creates a barrier of protection against “attacks” from other states. The strength exuded by United States suggests its power and influence.
Missile Defense: U.S Hegemony
Leaders are the vital determining factor of their respective states’ foreign policies. This is attributable to the fact that by creating policies worthy of world cognizance, leaders are creating impressions of their own self-importance while imparting some of their extra ordinary powers and influences to other state leaders who profess the same ideologies. As demonstrated by political psychologists, the decisions of these world leaders are measured by their counterparts, and from there, these counterparts make their own preferences but directly or indirectly patterned to the perceptions and personalities of the known world leaders. In effect, the ideas of the world leaders are magnified creating better recognition for their brilliance, efforts and marking their name in history.
A Hegemon is a dominant global leader that possesses the capability to emerge as the dictator of rules and arrangements affecting international relations, political and economic aspect. The United States was viewed as a hegemon in terms of foreign policies and world dominance. Evolution of political concepts and ideologies in its every context is brought about by an agent acting against the usual and traditional systemic processes. This only goes to show that the means of change is expected to go against the existing order and challenge the contemporary schematic procedures. Spearheading this change would be as implied, is the United States. This is interpreted to be that way because as a leader, US not only acts for and by the people of the United States but also for the benefit of others.
The Missile Defense capability of United States has placed it in a position more advanced than others. It gave them a vantage point as to where an opponent plans to strike and in effect, prevent or counter that planned attack.
In this day and age, much of the development in the field of Politics has been generally focused on policy-making and procedural re-awakening. An example of such is the latest headline-statements of the century involving defense, creation of nuclear weapons and of course, creating more peaceful efforts for better relationships existing among nations. This is attributable to the fact that as a state increases its influence, there is a need to increase its resources for self-preservation. By becoming a world leader and a dominant figure in the international community, the level of danger also increases as opposing entities may attack in the hope of toppling down a very influential state, using it as a symbol to emphasize that vulnerability exists and is present even with influential states.
Missile Defense is a means to ensure that United States as well as all the ideas it embodies as a Nation is well protected and can deter threats.
Baumgartner, Frank. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
Bhagwati, J, 2004, In Defense of Globalization, Oxford University Press, New York .Carolina Press, 1995.
Graham, Allison. Essence of Decision. Boston: Little Brown, 1981.
Greenstein, Fred. Personality and Politics .Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1987.
Held, D. (1991) “Democracy, the Nation-State and the Global System”, in D. Held (ed.), Political Theory Today. (Cambridge: Polity Press).
Jensen, Lloyd. Explaining Foreign Policy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1982.
Neustadt, Richard. Presidential Power. New York: Wiley, 1976.
Ray, James Lee. Democracies and International Conflict. Columbia: University of South
Taylor, P. (1989) “Structure, Culture and Action in the Explanation of Social Change”, politics and Society, 17.
Wallas, G. (1998) Human Nature in Politics. (London: Constable).
Young, Oran. System and Society in World Affairs: Implications for International Organizations.
Almond, G. A. and S. Verba (1963) “The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press); reissued by Sage, 1989.
 Baumgartner, Frank. Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.
 Wallas, G. (1998) Human Nature in Politics. (London: Constable).
 Young, Oran. System and Society in World Affairs: Implications for International Organizations.
 Greenstein, Fred. Personality and Politics .Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press, 1987.
 Jensen, Lloyd. Explaining Foreign Policy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1982.
 Taylor, P. (1989) “Structure, Culture and Action in the Explanation of Social Change”, politics and Society, 17.
 Young, Oran. System and Society in World Affairs: Implications for International Organizations.
 Neustadt, Richard. Presidential Power. New York: Wiley, 1976.
 Held, D. (1991) “Democracy, the Nation-State and the Global System”, in D. Held (ed.), Political Theory Today. (Cambridge: Polity Press).