ME 1:2 Flashcards
Briefly describe the categories of Arms
Nuclear weapons (explosive devices deriving their forces through nuclear reactions)
Bioweapons (microorganisms or toxic substances produced by living organisms)
Assess how destructive these are.
Nuclear weapons are of course, very dangerous and capable of wiping out whole cities, as past events in history can teach us.
But bioweapons have the capability to cause even greater damage considering how much easier they are to conceal and transport. However, they can only cause mass death.
What was meant by the idea that “globalization was a kind of manifest destiny”?
Before the 9/11 attacks, it was largely accepted that American values and ideas would spread across borders and over the world. One of these ideas is globalization. However, when the attack on the Twin Towers occurred, a display meant to be an attack on the American system and values, it showed that American ideas hadn’t successfully spread across the world and become widely accepted, therefore completely collapsing the notion that globalization was a manifest destiny— an almost inevitable path the world would take.
How did the terrorists of 9/11 turn the “tools of globalization” against the system?
Cellphones, e-mail, and International banking were considered tools of globalization as they allowed immediate and seamless connection between people and economies. The terrorists of 9/11 used these tools to communicate between themselves and to transfer funds. Since the notion of globalization originated from the US and the terrorists used its tools to attack the American system, they therefore turned the tools of globalization against the system.
How does globalization foster economic interdependence?
Globalization fosters economic interdependence with the transfer of resources between nations. This could be with the transfer of financial resources between countries, made easier with international banking and institutions set up just for the situation. This could also be through the transfer of human resources, made possible by immigration.
Explain “nonzero-sum”.
A nonzero-sum is a situation where the loss of one party doesn’t necessarily mean the gain of the other party, as there are chances for both parties in the relationship to gain or lose.
What does Wright suggest is one way to protect economic interdependence?
Wright suggests that the promotion of tolerance, of different ethnicities and religions, is a way to protect economic interdependence. On that basis, that is why Muslim nations that aren’t organically integrated into the global economy (not globalized/aren’t a part of the interconnected economies) have more open hatred towards other religions.
What is the basis of Wright’s morality?*
As with globalization comes an expansion of commerce, Wright reasons that morality does too. If you want to interact with people and do business with them, you first need to acknowledge their humanity. The idea that people of all religions and races are morally equal is an idea that is completely normal in this day and age, but looking back in history and the conflicts that occurred because they didn’t think like that, it’s revolutionary. So the power of this idea is necessary to expand economic interdependence. Hence highly globalized nations like the United States embrace ethnic and religious tolerance more commonly— it’s beneficial in the long run. So this moral enlightenment is rooted in self-interest, as conveyed by the non-zero sum logic behind expanding economic interdependence.
How might globalization affect the appeal of radical Islam?
The most obvious answer would be that globalization would reduce the appeal of radical Islam, especially if economic liberty also brings political liberty. However, globalization brings with it advances in information technology. Looking back, revolutions in technology have often brought about periods of instability. And this could give power to groups that lack it. Due to this, radical Islam could gain greater power and increase its appeal.
What does Wright suggest is the third variable in the age-old struggle between security and liberty?
Wright suggests that the third variable in the struggle between security and liberty is antipathy, or hatred. The less hatred there is, the more security security can be had without sacrificing any liberty and vice versa.
In what ways does Wright seem to be blaming America for 9/11? What does he suggest Americans do? Why?
He seems to be saying that while Americans see that prosperous and free Muslim nations are good for them, it would be best to pursue the goal delicately instead of with the force and intimidation they and that the addition of the internet only makes it easier for hatred and resentment to grow. He also suggests that Americans place themselves in the shoes of the people who are doing things that they find abhorrent, regardless of how hard it is, as they are criminating Islamic radicals for the same refusal, and someone has to take the first step.
Is globalization accompanied by “global governance” and “global moral progress” inevitable? Desirable?*
It does seem inevitable that with the movement of organizations to a global scale and the interconnected operations of economies that global governance and then global moral progress will accompany it. We can see the signs of that in our world already with the establishment of the WHO and other international institutions/standards in various fields.
It’s desirable as it keeps countries in check to prevent things like 9/11 from happening again and increases tolerance and decreases antipathy.
Is Wright’s editorial relevant 18 years after 9/11?
Wright’s editorial is still extremely relevant in the years after 9/11 as the end situation that results in a safe America and prosperous and free Muslim nations still hasn’t been achieved. After reading his editorial, one could even claim that the situation has gotten worse precisely because the situation was handled in the very indelicate manner that was cautioned against.
