Far from improving accuracy and “situational awareness,” the use of automation and artificial intelligence (AI) technology in U.S. counterterrorism operations simply compounds problems that already exist around the criteria for determining who constitutes a “threat.”
People care about deaths in war, whether the killing of their own soldiers or the killing of foreign civilians, which affects their support for military action.
Liberal democracies often justify their reliance on military force as necessary to maintaining freedom, as well as frame security threats in terms of the dangers posed to the everyday lives of regular people, such that individuals will be willing to give up some freedom for personal security.
In the wake of the U.S. abandoning the Iran Nuclear Deal and the growing tension between Israel, Iran, and the U.S., we must be wary of foreign policy saber-rattling in the context of “rallying around the flag”.
On May 8th, 2018, the U.S. pulled out of the Iran Nuclear Deal. The Trump administration claims the deal is unfair and leaves plenty of opportunities for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon--a claim all other parties to the deal disagree with.
A large U.S. troop presence can be an effective tool in deterring war, but often provokes militarized activities short of war.
In public opinion polling, question framing strongly influences people’s support for the use of military force.
One of the valuable ways peace educators can use history as a tool to problematize war is to highlight the common “war-centered” narratives used to frame historical events.
Diversionary conflicts during domestic unrest are more likely to target more powerful states, showing no evidence that traditional 'enemies' are targeted.
Inside this issue, we analyze research on the negligent dismissal of environmental and health considerations during the world’s race to develop nuclear weapons. The second analysis examines how the perceived legitimacy, power, and language of certain people can influence thinking and policy on nuclear disarmament efforts. The third analysis examines how gender and Western domination of knowledge shape nuclear discourse. In the fourth analysis, we highlight the importance of devaluing nuclear weapons not only as material, but as social objects. Finally, we examine empirical research that considers U.S. proximity and power as the main contributor to North Korea’s nuclear ambitions.