– The Bush Doctrine and the us Missile Defence Shield in Eastern Europe: Implications for Iran and US Military Resources –
Download The Bush Doctrine and the us Missile Defence Shield in Eastern Europe: Implications for Iran and US Military Resources project materials: This project material is ready for students who are in need of it to aid their research.
ABSTRACT
This study sets out to investigate the Bush Doctrine and the US Missile Defence shield in Eastern Europe, with the central objective of exploring its implications for Iran. To achieve the objective of this study, two research questions and two hypotheses were raised.
To substantiate the claims made in this study, we anchored analysis on the theoretical framework of political realism. This is because the Bush Doctrine which advocates preemptive strike, unilateralism and global spread democracy is a pure demonstration of military strength.
Our research design was experimental and ex post facto. The choice of ex post facto design is necessitated by the nature of our research questions. The essential variables in our hypotheses are such that control groups cannot be introduced to address the various effects of the Bush Doctrine and the proposed missile defence system in Eastern Europe.
We relied heavily on primary and secondary sources of data. The primary sources of data are from the American Embassy, Congressional research report among others. While text books, journals, unpublished works and official documents constituted our secondary sources.
After a critical analysis of available data and extant literature, the study revealed as follows; first, that the US suffered about 4,185 fatalities since the war began in Iraq. This figure excludes the number of US military causalities in Afghanistan where security situation has seriously worsened.
The study further revealed that the war has badly depleted the America’s National Guard’s domestic store of vehicles, weapons and communications gear, officials with the service say, leaving units with one-third of the equipment needed to meet requirements for homeland security, its primary mission.
TABLE OF CONTENT
Title Page — — — — — — — — – i
Approval Page — — — — — — — — ii
Dedication — — — — — — — — — iii
Acknowledgement — — — — — — — iv
Acronyms — — — — — — — — — v
Table of Content — — — — — — — — xiv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION.
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Statement of problem
1.3 Objectives of the Study
1.4 Significance of the Study
1.5 Literature Review
1.6 Theoretical Framework
1.7 Hypotheses
1.8 Method of Data Collection
CHAPTER TWO: OVERVIEW OF THE BUSH DOCTRINE AND BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSED MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM IN EASTERN EUROPE
2.1 Overview of the Bush Doctrine
2.2 Components of the Bush Doctrine
2.2.1 Preemptive Strikes
2.2.2 Unilateralism
2.2.3 Attacking Countries that Habour Terrorist
2.2.4 Democratic Regime Change
2.3 Influences on the Bush Doctrine
2.4 The Threat for Missile Defence System in Eastern Europe
2.5 The Source of the Defence System
2.5 The Missile Defence System
CHAPTER THREE: THE BUSH DOCTRINE AND IMPACT ON US MILITARY RESOURCES
3.1 The Bush Doctrine and Cost on US Soldiers and Military Equipments
3.2 The Bush Doctrine and Cost on US Financial Resources
CHAPTER FOUR: THE PROPOSED MISSILE DEFENCE SYSTEM IN EASTERN EUROPE AND IRANIAN DESIRE TO ACQUIRE NUCLEAR WEAPONS
4.1 Iranian Nuclear History
4.2 Iranian Nuclear Programme from 2000 to 2009
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
5.1 Summary and Conclusion
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INTRODUCTION
For much of the last century, America’s defence relied on the Cold War doctrines of deterrence and containment. In some cases, those strategies still apply.
But new threats also require new thinking. Deterrence- the promise of massive retaliation against nations-means nothing against a shadowy terrorist network with no nation or citizen to defend.
Containment is not possible when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist allies.
Homeland defence and missile defence are part of stronger security, and they are essential priorities for America. Yet the war on terror will not be won on the defensive.
We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge. In the world we have entered, the only path to safety is the path of action. And this nation will act (George W. Bush Jnr. Remarks at West Point Commencement Ceremonies, June 1, 2001)
After the September 11 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States of America, the vulnerability of US as a major power and other states to rogue states became crystallized.
It threw into sharp relief the nature of the threats the whole world face today. Today’s threats come less from massing armies than from small, shadowy bands or terrorist.
In the middle are a handful of otherwise “weak” derelict states whose possession or imminent possession of nuclear weapons makes them rising powers in the narrow-military sense. With such weapons, these states’ aggressive habits have far greater consequences (Donnelly, 2006).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Asika, N. (2006) Research Methodology in the Behavioural Sciences. Lagos: Longman Freedman, R.O. (2006), Russia, Iran and the Nuclear Question: The Putin Record. Carlisle: Strategic Studies Institute.
Ikeagwu, E.K. (1998) Groundwork of Research Methods and Procedures. Enugu: Institute for Development Studies
Knight, C. (2002) Essential Elements missing in the National Security Strategy of 2002, Cambridge: Commonwealth Institute on Defence Alternatives.
Kaplan, G. and Kristol, W. (2002) The War over Iraq: Saddams’s Tyranny and American’s Mission. New York: Elsever Limited.
Kurth, J. (2005) Global Threats and American Strategies: From Communism n 1955 to Islamism in 2005, New York: Elsevier Limited.
Nye, J and Robert, K. (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
StudentsandScholarship Team.
Join Our Newsletter!
Don’t miss this opportunity
Enter Your Details
Be the first to comment