• "Road map" for U.S. Policy
• Watit for Soveit Union to reform from within
• Be vigiliant and patient
• 4 main Things U.S. Needs to Know a/b Soviets (according to Kennan)
1. There's an innate antagonism b/t socialism & capitalism
2. There's an infallibity of Soviet leaders
3. Soviet leaders construct "truth" instrumentally
4. Iron discipline
• Phsychology of Soviet leaders
• Power hungry
• Insecure (internallly)
• instinctive desires, impulses

Provides three differnet models for explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis. Argues that depending on what model you take or choose to use, you will always get a different outcome, it is difficult to prove exactly why a governemt follows a particular course of action.

• U.S's motives for Cold War Intervention:
• preserving the U.S. ideology and economic dominance in the world, 
• The U.S. gov. painted the USSR as the evil enemy to mobilize its citizens.
• protecting national resources --> Economic dominance more important than human rights
• Believes that one must analyze the domestic politics of e/ state to understand the CW, especially the goals of the domestic elites in e/country
• Views on Latin American Intervention
• U.S. doesn't want other states to develop that pose a "threat of example", that a country could succesfully develop outside the U.S.-managed global system
• America's proclaimed ideals of democracy and equality are actually totally irrelevant to its real foreign policy of serving its own needs and intrests of those who hold domestic power.
• U.S. put their own dominance over human rights
• Chomsky claims a "Fifth Freedom: Freedom for American business and finance to operate abroad wiht minimal restraint

a constructivist

Constructivism is the only paradigm that explains the changing norms that motivate states to donate aid or intervene, even when doing so doesn't direclty benefit the state - according to finnemore

• Says that states act according to what is acceptable , and humanitar intervention is (?)
• Reject liberalism and realism as explanations for explicitly humanitarian interventions into countries, prefers construtivism. Says they are incapable of explaining the changing constructed norms which dictate people's willingness to give.
• Constructivism explains the norms and other resasons for interening when it seems that there is no geopolitical or economic way to explain it.
• She believes constructivism is the only reason to explain why states's interven if it doesn't seem to benefit them
• Specific normative justificaion has change from protection Christain whites to non-Christain non-whites
• She stresses that todays states intervene multilaterally to demonsrate the selfless nature of their goals - the involvement of multiple states prevents imperalism via intervention

• Says the post-WWII intl. system can be explained by systems theory b/c the the behavior of the intl. system as a whole differs from the expectations and priorities of individuals.
• According to the systems theory there are 3 factors that have a stabilizing effect ont he world system:
1. structure of the world system
2. behavior of the system's states
3. rules of the system

Explains the paradox of a security community in an intl. system of constant war.

Explains the interpretation of this by each paradigm.

He has his own viepoint on this however. He believes the high cost of war, the gains from peace, and the values that are prevalent within the security community enforce it.

Provides his explanation for why there isnt a competitive balancing process against America's hegemonic power.

• Believe that the U.S. is too strong and georaphically too far away from the imp countries to be "balanced"
• Balancng the U.S. wouldn't be strategic for other states b/c the U.S. is s neutral (aka a good partner to have)

Wohlworth thinks that since American engagement won't produce counterblancing from other states, it has th eoption of continuing its policy of engagement.

Constructivism is required to analyze the end of the CW. Because it is norms and state identies that cause change in the intl. system.

Rejects realism in providing answers to changes in the world system

Why:

• B/c all manmade isntitutions, including states, are regulated in accordance with constructed norms.
• not helpful to understand the modern intl. system in terms of poles and shifting alliance, b/c states don't alwys act as they should
• Fundamental chagne occurs in the intl. system when its constitutive norms are altered, as this will cause changes in the actions of the states and other institutions tha make up the owrld

Essentially believes that having nuclear weapons creates detterence rather than danger, nukes make war less likely.

• Chance of war is less likely, and intesity of war will be lower
• Thus believs that states are rational & self preserving
• Nukes also deter attacks on any vital strategic interests
• Weaker states are NOT more likely to use nukes irresponsibly because they would lose in a conventional war and therefore need to save thier nukes-would only use them if survival is at stake, not for irresponsible aggression
• The possibiliity (however remote) and uancceptably high cost of destrucktion makes states more careful.
• One can't totally stop the spread of nukes, each state will always strive to seek its own security.
• Believes that even terrorists are not irrational
• Doesn't think states need to unified, that enough decision-making processes will conform to the rational decision
   

• Military organizations, unless managed by strong civilian-control isntitutions, will b
• Theres no checks and balances system of civilian control over military
• State is not unitary and not necessarily rational, it is subject to miscalculations and accidnets.