Cold War - Science topic

All my best wishes Sir!

Of course, because the matter is not only about signing agreements of a technical nature, but the establishment of peace is related to other factors that go beyond that, such as establishing the rules of trust between countries, especially the major powers, and realizing that the concept of security is no longer only related to the strategic aspect, but to all issues that affect In human security, such as health, the environment, the economy, culture, etc., and the continuation of major crises such as Ukraine and Taiwan may push nuclear states to use these weapons, even if tactically, and therefore the specter of weapons of mass destruction remains hanging over all these agreements.

I think that this issue can be attributed to a combination of factors. Firstly, the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 signaled a shift in the political landscape, with his administration rolling back much of the environmental regulation and green initiatives put in place by the Carter administration. Secondly, the global economic recession of the 1980s further diminished the public's interest in environmental issues, as people focused on economic concerns instead. Thirdly, the rise of neoconservatism in the Reagan era also weakened the climate aware movement, as the administration sought to promote economic growth and reduce government regulation. Finally, the end of the Cold War in the early 1990s further weakened the movement, as public attention shifted toward other issues. The green movement has since morphed into a variety of different causes, including gender equality, animal rights, and sustainable development. Climate change has remained an important issue, but there has been an increased focus on more specific, localized issues such as air pollution, water quality, and energy conservation. There has also been a shift toward more grassroots activism and public education, as individuals and communities take the lead in addressing environmental issues.

سوال جدا متميز نعم اثر ذلك وفقا لطبيعة ادوار القوى الاقليمية والدوليه وفي اطار المصالح الدولية والتوازنات الاستراتيجية قي الاقليم

As promised, reactions to the sceptical points raised in the previous post.

Computers do not need feelings. Computer based models can have knowledge of the preconditions for the appearance of eg anger or guilt, in an agent and knowledge of the corresponding behaviour that typically follows.

All models are pitched at a level of abstraction/simplification which must be such that the model is both tractable as regardes its complexity and effective as regards its usefulness. There may not exist such a level of abstraction, but one cannot knew in advance. To a considerable degree, one must "suck it and see".

The danger of weaponisation of such a project is very real I feel (compare war-gaming). Key are independent funding, full publicity and openness at all stages, and an unswerving comitment to global neutrality. United Nations??

As ever, all comments welcomed, even those of the "Total Garbage!" variety.

James

Dear colleagues, I have already said on several occasions that the indicators usually used to assess the impact of an investigation are not fair and respond to the interests of great Editorials, those that have open-access journals and, with that, the obligation to pay for to post. Many journals from the former USSR are not published by Western publishers, so they are ignored by databases such as Scopus and WOS.

"To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the height of excellence. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the height of excellence."

- Sun Tzu, The Art of War

In my humble opinion Dear Prof. Anthonia Iroegbu,

UN should take seriously the relation they might have with regimes such as the one that is destroying my country. This is their main mission, but they are quite politically aligned I guess. Meanwhile, we are dying here. Bureaucracy.

I am not sure whether you wish to see the theoretical limits as exposed in academic debates or a more sociological analysis of the habitus of the field of IR (in the sense of its wider expert system). For the first, there had been early books that tried to expose the limits of some IR theories. As Ross Smith rightly says, this may not be smething that theories would be ever able to predict or anticipate. This said, some theories had far more troubles even understanding the type of change that was going on. Hence, an interesting issue is not only why scholars failed to predict it, but which theories would them even allow to conceive and understand such change. Invariably, structural realism was considered simply unable to understand change. For early volumes which expose this critique, see Patomäki, Heikki. 1992. "What Is It That Changed with the End of the Cold War? An Analysis of the problem of Identifying and Explaining Change." In The End of the Cold War: Evaluating Theories of International Relations, edited by Pierre Allan and Kjell Goldmann, 179-225. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff. See also the book in general and Lebow, Richard Ned, and Thomas Risse-Kappen, eds. 1995. International Relations Theory and the End of the Cold War. New York: Columbia University Press.

As for the debates and rebuttals around realism, there was an exchange between William Wohlforth and Mark Kramer in the Review of International Studies. Kramer, Mark. 1999. "Ideology and the Cold War." Review of International Studies 25 (4):539-576. Wohlforth, William C. 2000. "Ideology and the Cold War." Review of International Studies 26 (2):327-331. Kramer, Mark. 2001. "Realism, ideology, and the end of the Cold War." Review of International Studies 27 (1):119-130.

Wphlforth returned to it more generally: Wohlforth, William C. 1998. "Reality Check: Revising Theories of World Politics in Response to the End of the Cold War." World Politics 50 (4):650-680. For a synthesis of those debates, see Petrova, Margarita H. 2003. "The End of the Cold War: A Battle or Bridging Ground Between Rationalist and Ideational Approaches to International Relations?" European Journal of International Relations 9 (1):115-163.

For the question, whether there is some predisposition in the way the field's expertise is organised, there is a more general literature, not necessarily tied to the COld War (see Inanna Hamati-Ataya on reflexivity for instance). What is truly important is that the discipline is close to the language of practice. I.e. if it did not occur to a diplomat to anticipate it, as Nicholas Kitchen mentions, that would be the habitus more generally.

سيدي العزيز بيل

لو لم تكن مؤامره لانتهت الحرب بينهما ولم تستمر لأكثر من سنتان على الأكثر ولكنهم عملوا على تقسيم العالم بينهما ليسيطروا عليه

You can't go wrong if you publish in HI journals in North America , Europe or Oceania

Louis Brassard Dictatorships and democracies are generally hostile "in principle" to each other. Though there are many reasons to cooperate with dictatorships or be in competition with other democracies.

Those in democracies are forever patting themselves on the back for living under the best form of government and feeling sorry for those who don't have one of their own.

There are instances where "more-or-less" democratically elected government are opposed, as in Venezuela now or Mosaddegh (though there still was a Shah in Iran at the time.) Even today in Iran, the country has "elected" officials but it is not presented as a "democracy." The Ayatollahs effectively just replaced the Shahs.

So, the transition from autocracy to democracy is halting ... two steps forward and one back. But with increasing production and trade these nation will transition eventually.

As far as your observation that military technologies are too advanced to be used politically. ...

I hope you are right but I think you will be proven wrong over time.

When the machine gun was first developed there was talk that it was so effective and efficient that it would make war fighting obsolete.

And no weapon, once developed, has ever NOT been used eventually.

Recall, atomic weapons have already been used in war by the U.S.

Most wars are started by over-confident and over-righteous politicians who dream they will be short and victorious...

Look at Athens attacking Sicily

Look at WWI

Look at Hitler attacking the U.S.S.R.

Look at George W. Bush in Iraq & Afghanistan

Look at Castro during the Cuban missile crises. He was an ideologue and openly prepared to have his nation incinerated in a thermonuclear exchange between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. for the good of the world-wide communist movement!

My guess (and I hope I am wrong) is that someday, some other fanatic will come to power in a nation that has a nuclear capability and he will convince himself and his people that a quick attack with nukes will assure them an easy victory.

Who knows who that will be or what nation he will be leading.

And my guess is, when that happens, most of his people will be waiving flags and cheering him on...

An interesting question. Considering current research problems important for science, I think that the question concerns particularly important issues. I believe that research on this topic should be continued. There was an interesting discussion. Greetings

Hassan Syed is completely ON POINT Ma'am!

Thank you. Rebecca Bowman

USA many times is saved by common man .

Dear Aqsa,

politically correct (no harm meant!), the Second World War was a global war involving fighting in many parts of the world and many countries; not merely in/between Europe and the USA, but rather between the Axis Powers and the Allied Powers. Fyi , some Asian countries were also involved in the Second World War, remember the Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Thailand vs France or China and Thailand vs Japan later on?

So now my two cents to your question: The Cold War was the definition for a period in which conflict, tension and ideological competition between the United States (along with its allies called the Western Bloc) and the Soviet Union (and its allies called the Eastern Bloc) occurred between 1947-1991.

As is well known, the very important countries in determining the changes in the international structure were the powerful states at that period. The balance of power between states can be achieved, but war has always been a possibility in the anarchist system. Waltz distinguished between the bipolar system (*Neo-Realism) as it befell during the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union, and the multipolar system (*Realism) that took place before or after the Cold War. Waltz believed that the bipolar system was more stable because it provided better peace and security guarantees than multipolar systems. "With only two powerful states, both can be expected to act to maintain the system." This is because in maintaining the system they maintain themselves at the same time. According to Robert Jackson & Georg Sorensen, the Cold War was a period of "stability and international peace."

I hope to have helped you understand the Neo-Realism in the context of the Second World War.

Especially over the last 100 years, wars have tended to accelerate technological development. (The number of technological innovations that World War I, World War II, and the Cold War sparked is astonishing. Even today, national security budgets continue to play a big part in technological development.) It would take a cynic to suggest that we owe all our inspirations to conflict; but, it is a curious (and sad) fact of modern society that civilian life is in such large part powered by the technology of war. (Interestingly, empirical research concerned with the causal effect of war on innovation is scarce.)

There are several factors that should be considered. The most important of them are:

1- Iran is the country leading the Shia community within the Muslim community and Saudi Arabia is the country leading the Sunni community within the same community. These two main branches of the Islam have a strong religious confrontation a very long time ago, and the confrontation still exists today.

2- As the leader of these two different Muslim communities, Iran and Saudi Arabia wishes to be the dominant forces in the Middle East, and this is the reason for the strong confrontation between these two countries.

3- Saudi Arabia is one of the most relevant allied of the USA in the Middle East, and Iran is the strongest enemy of the USA in the same region.

4- The position of both countries against Israel is different.  Iran has a strong opposition to the existence of Israel in the region, while Saudi Arabia has a more tolerant position against the existence of this country.

The only way that these two countries could contribute to the stability in the Middle East is if both countries find a solution to their differences and stop supporting other countries with the same position. Taking into account the current situation in the region this is not going to happen any time soon.

write letter to USA embassy in Georgia, also, you can find many sources at Georgian university libraries. 

The Suez Crisis created our current problems in the Middle East.

Google Cold War International History Project at the Woodrow Wilson Center, then look under Publications. The newsletter has autobiographical updates from time to time.

Well, first of all Rocky IV is a pretty dumb movie. I hope you got in for free. I'm a senior with my final semester coming up. I'm also a senior, 64 years old, a boomer. Those were Pres. Reagan's years in office, served two terms and got the bums rush out of office because of the Iran-Contra Affair. He was guilty but a very slippery politician. At that moment in history, America was bluffing the Soviets with very legal diplomatic B.S.

It was called Stars Wars,. It was driving the Russians into bankruptcy, along with their war with Afganistan. America backed the Afganis, costing the Russians too much in lives and rubles. Reagan's Star Wars put-on, a fake pile of lies making the US's abilities with technical weaponry seem almost magical, because it wasn't true. America drove in the final nails in Communist Russia's coffin. Their economic policies broke up the power of the communists. Reagan met with Michail Gorbachev for four summits. He finally signed a treaty marking the backing up, and slowing down of the worlds nuclear weapons. Reagan sold Americans a policy of economic spending and something called Reaganomics, more B'S. In his last meeting with the Russians, in Iceland I believe, The Russian diplomats thought Ronnie Reagan had gone nuts. The Russians came to do some real changing of nuclear  weaponry. Appearently he just kept on spitting out the old Rhetorical message over and over again.

No, Rocky IV didn't scare me at all. 

When I was five years old in 1955 , sitting all alone in front of our new black and white TV, the announcer, Walter Cronkite had me running around in circles when he showed the newest in A-bombs. The Hydrogen bomb. That still fucks me up. Don't reprint that. I was also in the Vietnam war. I'm a history major, could have graduated 3 semesters ago, but fell in love with English. Want to write a few things down before I leave. That's a lie, I'm not leaving. Changing shapes when the Singularity arrives. War is my specialty. You can thank Ronnie for bringing back major penalties for marijuana. People liked him, I didn't . I don't think he ever had an original thought. Sorry for going off on you. Sterling O'Hickey  

Hola Caroline,

En el caso de Chile, los trabajos conjuntos de Elizabeth Lira & Brian Loveman son ineludibles. Parte importante de sus publicaciones están en español, pero hay bastante traducido. 

También vale la pena mirar los trabajos de Priscilla Hayner y Elizabeth Jelin, así como el número especial de Radical History Review, recomendado por Matine más arriba. Hay pistas teóricas en cada artículo.

Saludos.

Have a look on these:

DECAUX, A. "THE RED WEHRMACHT+ GERMAN PRISONERS-OF-WAR COOPERATING WITH RUSSIA." <i>HISTORIA</i> 470 (1986): 4-15.

Biess, Frank. Homecomings: Returning POWs and the Legacies of Defeat in Postwar Germany. Princeton University Press, 2006.

Ginsburgs, George. "Light Shed on the Story of Wehrmacht Generals in Soviet Captivity." Criminal Law Forum. Vol. 11. No. 1. Springer Netherlands, 2000.