Risk Game

In the final two days of class this semester, we played a game called risk; except in this particular instance the rules were modified in a way that would model international politics. my team was the blue team and our objective was to take over Ukraine for two rounds with World Council Sanctions. We did have an added bonus of draft three additional armies to any area that we chose. While we did obtain the territory for one round, we soon lost virtually our entire army when two other groups joined forced to take us down. Lucky for us, our miserery was soon over when the black team won the entire game. 

Although this was simply a simulation game, in many ways we can draw connections to real international politics. For starters, I found it so interesting that throughout the course I had never "understood" or "believed" in realists theories; they believe that there will be a lot of mistrust amongst countries. Interestingly enough, throughout my experience in the game I found that my team was very untrusting. We saw different members of each team talking to everyone, including our enemies and we became very untrusting. I finally began to  understand the rational that goes into realist theory. Second, you realize how difficult it is to do anything, especially when other countries have the same goal. ALthough we did gain control ofthge Ukraine for one round, once the other team recognized that we were fulfilling our goal, they took it upon themselves to gain every other team against us (which was very smart). Simialrly, in international politics, many countries may have the same goals- which could make it difficult for one country to complete their initial goal. It takes time and bartering. 

Truthfully speaking, the game overall was both fun and educational. I do think that there could be some improvements in the game. I think that it during the directions, it should be explicitly mentioned that ou can share your special weapon with another team. Also, I think that it would make the game much more interesting if a country could go from an ally to "at war". In real life politics, while it rarely happens, I suppose that there is always a case that an ally could turn against each other- by adding this into the game and eliminating neutrality, this would create more tension. During this game, I felt secure much of the time because I had allies; if I knew that at any moment they could turn on me, that would change the dynamics of the game entirely. 

Risky

Theo Slepski

            In the game risk my team was the black team. The goal for our country in the game was to create as many alliances as possible or have no wars going on during the game. I believe that we had to have 16 alliances on the board in order to win. Our country had a great advantage and was very powerful because we never went to war and collect resources the entire game. We did whatever we could no matter how bad the consequences were to make alliances. I will argue how even though we never went to war we still did some pretty bad things to help gain alliances and how this is ultimately bad.

            Our group would do anything we could to win alliances with other groups. Eventually during the game one team declared war with us (even though we never actually had a conflict with that team). Being the team we were we could not engage in war with this team. This caused us to look at other countries to become alliances with. We joined forces with other teams by using the idea that we hate this team and our potential allies hate this team so in result we joined forces. We ended up joining forces with so many other teams that eventually that team, that declared war against us, got so weak that they ended up withering away. This is bad because our main goal of the game was to be peaceful people and eventually we made a team very weak.

            I also believe that the game of risk we played is a lot like the real world because no one really knew what each other’s main goal was in order to win. If we all knew each other’s goal we probably would have not had so many conflicts. This is a lot like today’s world. The reason why America fought in the Iraq war is because America had no clue if Iraq had nuclear weapons or not. The only reason our team won was because no other teams had any clue what our goal was. If any other team knew we could not attack and we wanted alliances no one would become our allies and everyone would wage war against us. If everyone knew eachothers end game I believe that the teams would communicate and everyone’s demands would be meet and no conflicts would occur.

            This game is different from real world international politics because there is no real winner. This is probably the most unrealistic part about international politics risk. In the real world when a war happens there is obviously a winner but normally at huge cost. In this game there was always a winner and a loser no matter what.

Risk Game

Jonathan Sullivan
International Politics
Prof. Shirk
December 12, 2017

In our class game of risk I felt as though a few of the ideas of the game had realistic elements of international politics as well the game had some unrealistic elements. Two of the realistic parts of the game was the alliance making, the team objective ideas. I liked these parts of the game because I think that happen a lot in international politics. The alliance making is so critical in today's world. The United States has so many alliances with countries because smaller nations want the protection of our military. In turn we gain their support and become stronger together. The more countries you have on your side the stronger you are, and less likely you are to be attacked. The team objectives was also very compelling. This is because even though you may think you have an alliance with someone at the end of the day everyone has their own goals. I relate this to WWII and how the Americans and Soviets worked together. While they worked to rid Europe of the Nazis it is obvious the two nations had very different objectives.
Two unrealistic parts of the game I thought were the special powers and the way wars were won. I understand the whole point of the special powers is to make the game a bit more fun and entertaining which is fun but is unrealistic. Also, the team with the more blocks had an advantage with rolling the dice but I thought that it should be harder to win a territory. In particular I thought a team defending should have an advantage no matter what. It would make the game slower but I thought it should be harder to win a war if you are attacking with a smaller force.

Two things I would change about the game would be the world council and the amount of teams. I think the world council should be changed and countries with more territories and power should have their vote count a little more like 1.5 instead of 1. This relates to how larger countries in the world have more control over smaller countries in world politics. I believe the number of teams should be increased because I thought 5 people on a team were too many and 3 would be better. I think this could help people stay more engaged in the game because there was a lot of waiting and sitting around for the members of the team that were not the president or diplomat. This way everyone would have to pay attention which would make the game more enjoyable for all.

'Risk'y Business

            Last week we played Diplomatic Risk in which each team was given an objective and developed its one strategy to achieve its goal. My team, the blue team, was the global hegemon. Our goal was to take over the territory of Ukraine but to also do so with World Council sanction. For my team to win the game, we had to end two successive rounds controlling Ukraine and with World Council sanction. To help us achieve this goal, our secret power was the ability to draft new three armies during the reinforcement stage. While in the final round of the ground my team controlled Ukraine and had received one World Council Sanction, yet we ended up losing because the black team was able to secure enough alliances to win and it would have been tough for us to win after we lost Ukraine mid-round.

    While the game was a simulation of international politics, some parts of the game were realistic. The game showed how smaller or weaker states could work together to overpower larger states. This is evident in how the blue team, the global hegemon, lost Ukraine to teams that had less territory and fewer armies. With the help of another team, they were able to attack and win without having to fight. Another practical aspect of the game was how the actions of teams to reach their objectives interfere with the plans or goals of other teams. Just like in world politics, many of the goals of certain states can overlap, much like how both the blue and red team wanted Ukraine. Most of the time, like what happened in the game, neither of the time will be able to achieve their goals because they are too busy working to harm the other that they lose sight of what is at stake. Another realistic part of the game was focusing too much on one spot, such as my team focusing too much on securing Ukraine, can cause a state to lose. After obtaining Ukraine, my team made it obvious that we sought to hold onto the region, which in turn hurt us. In International Politics, if a state over reals what they are planning on doing in a region, this can hurt them, as others can prepare to attack or counteract what will happen in the region. Also, if a state focuses too much of its attention or resources in one area, then the rest of their goals in other regions can falter.

    Although there were many events during the game that could play out in International Politics, there were also many parts of the game that were unrealistic. In International Politics, states would only enter an alliance they knew would benefit them. During the game, many teams made alliances, but they were mostly for show. Just two teams used their alliance in the game, which came as a shock to many of the other teams because for most of the game an alliance was something that solely lived on the board. Alliances in the game do not resemble real life alliances because in International Politics alliances are things that are constant and not just on paper, members of groups such as NATO act upon any attack committed against their allies, which did not occur during the game. Another unrealistic aspect of the game is how the black team was able just to sit back and let everything play out. I do not believe that states would be willing to let other states control their faith. I think that if the black team were to be a player in International Politics, that they would never achieve their goals because it is impossible not to involve one’s self in a situation and then expect the outcome to go their way. Another unrealistic aspect of the game is that a team had to go from allies, to neutral, and then to war to be able to attack another team. In reality, if a state wanted to attack a state, rather than waiting to pass through different phases, they would just draft a declaration of war. If states had to wait the way teams had to in the game, then International Politics would have to be thought of differently.

    Applying both the realistic and unrealistic aspects of the game, I believe that the game may be altered to improve the outcome. I could not come up with many ways to change the game, but I think that the game would be enhanced if teams were forced to starts at different corners of the globe to then fight their way into the regions that matter most to them. My team had a lot of territory surrounding Ukraine which made it easy for us to focus our attention there and to rapidly get into the region. While we did not win the game, I think that us having a lot of territory surrounding the region helped us oust the red team quickly as well as aided us in getting the region within the first few rounds.

Terrorism in The United States

The United States of America is no stranger to terrorist attacks. It is home to the two largest terrorist attacks in the history of man. The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 and of course September 11, 2001 in New York, Washington D.C., and Pennsylvania. Why terrorism is nothing new to the United States, the type of people who commit terrorist attacks varies. While many people associate terrorism only with foreign-born Islamic men this is not always the case. In fact according to data since 9/11 85% of those accused of jihadist terrorism crime were either a United States citizen or legal resident and half of them were born in the United States.  As United States citizens we should be more focused on our neighbors and fellow Americans as committing terrorist attacks here than trying to ban people from foreign nations.

It is no secret that many believe than President Donald Trump is islamophobic. One of the main parts of his campaign was the idea that he would ban people from majority Muslim countries from immigrating to America. He of course reaffirmed this after his election banning those from Syria, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia. He also created headlines last week by retweeting videos of Muslim refugees causing mischief and harm. Trumps want American citizens to believe that we should be concerned with people from other countries but as recent history shows we should most definitely be more concerned with homegrown-terrorism. Take for example the Orlando shooting which was caused by an America born citizen. Nothing about Trump's ban would have prevented that. Potential terrorists are living right here in America, right now, and we should focus on our own citizens rather than those from foreign countries.

While it may sound rash I believe the United States should increase security and continue to monitor its citizens for potential warnings. If you aren't training to find out how to kill as many people as possible you should be fine. We should sacrifice some potential individual rights in order to protect the safety and well-being of all Americans. Of course, this type of security will be highly debated on whether or not it is constitutional but would anyone really care whether it was constitutional or not if it saved your life. The second belief I have that shouldn't really even be a debate is stricter gun control. The San Bernardino, Orlando, and Las Vegas (if you consider it terrorism) were all caused by people who were able to buy heavy duty artillery too easily. Lawful American gun owners should be rational enough to deal with some restrictions if it means protecting the lives of their fellow Americans.

As Americans we are at a much higher risk of being attacked by our fellow American than someone from a distant land. We should focus on securing our own country and citizens, and that starts by increased security. We should also enact stricter gun control laws so events like Orlando, San Bernardino, and Las Vegas never happen again. Giving up some individual rights to protect the lives of all Americans is something we all should be in favor for.


Valverde, Miriam. “What the Data Shows on Domestic Terrorism Perpetrators.” PolitiFact, www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/16/look-data-domestic-terrorism-and-whos-behind-it/. 

                       

The Effectiveness of NGOs

When states experience natural disasters or human rights abuses, an NGO will step in to aid the people of the region. This non-governmental organization gets involved in a situation if the local government does not or cannot remedy the situation. While NGOs set out with good intentions, if the organization fails to achieve its goals in a particular region, the group’s effectiveness is question deeming the group unaccountable. In Haiti, the Red Cross has failed to achieve many of its goals, the group’s lack of coordination with local groups as well as the failure in properly spending the donations that they received leaving millions of people still in need of help to this day.

NGOs or non-governmental organizations are groups that are separate from a state’s political body. NGOs differ from IGOs which are groups set up by states such as the US and the UK and include organizations such as the UN and the IMF. Separating NGOs from politics seemingly allows the group to focus all of their efforts on helping people and keeps them issue-oriented. Some of the issues that NGOs focus on are the environment, poverty, and human rights. One of the reasons an NGO will become involved is if the government of the state that the issue is effecting neglects to react or chooses not to. Another reason for NGOs to get involved is if the citizens of the state are being oppressed in response to the issue. Two ways in which NGOs exert influence is through framing and accountability politics. Framing occurs when an NGO obscures the information surrounding the issue to make the audience more sympathetic toward the issue; this includes the use of provocative images and phrases in their advertisements. Accountability politics is when an NGO employs its resources to highlight how the government or the corporations involved have failed in their efforts to remedy the crisis. An NGO will cite examples where the government has failed to live up to their word thereby forcing the government to rethink its stance on the issue and to take a positive step toward remedying the issue.

While NGOs are independent organizations and are meant to aid people in impoverished situations, many critiques are surrounding them. One such critique is that unlike government leaders, the leaders of NGOs are unelected. Government leaders have a mandate from their people to uphold the promises that they previously made, yet NGOs have no such force to make them accountable. As a result, the NGO may state a goal that they hope to achieve, but the public has no way to ensure that the organization will carry out the goal.  Another criticism of NGOs is that the interests of the group may not represent the issues of the people directly affected by the issue. Many of the NGOs originated in Western states and then go into impoverished nations with Western ideals that are very different than those of the citizens of the states. These issues cause many to question the effectiveness of NGOs and to consider reforming the aide giving system, especially after studying cases in states such as Haiti where NGOs have failed the people there.

NGOs went into Haiti after the devastating earthquake in 2010 and recently after Hurricane Matthew in 2016. Much of the goals that NGOs such as the Red Cross stated when entering both conflicts have not been fulfilled at the expense of Haiti’s citizens. Many NGOs first failure was when they separated themselves from the people affected by the crisis. Rather than coordinating with local groups, the NGOs remained independent entities. This failure to include the local people in their efforts minimized the relief efforts while at the same leading many groups to divert their resources into similar relief efforts. While the Red Cross was able to raise $486 million for the earthquake relief efforts, much of this money has gone to waste through the lack of coordination with the locals. Rather than assessing the situation from a citizen’s perspective, the Red Cross did what it saw best, thereby running into many issues. One failure resulting from the Red Cross’ lack of coordination was the way in which the organization spent money to build shelters. The organization told its donors that it was going to use the funds to rebuild Haiti and therefore would be able to save Haitian citizens. The money that was intended to save lives through the construction of homes instead went to the purchasing of tarps that were distributed to the people. Seven years later and millions of people in Haiti still need aid because of the Red Cross’ failure to assess the situation accurately. The organization attempted to provide a quick fix to a situation with many issues, many of which could not be fixed within a few months.

NGOs are aid organizations that are not associated with a state’s government. These organizations go into the states that are in dire situations, and while the NGO may have the best intentions, the goals it sets for its time in the state are not always met.  In Haiti, the failure of the Red Cross to coordinate with the people to figure out how to appropriately allocate its donations led the organizations to fail to achieve many of the goals it set for the region, such as building permanent homes for the people. The failure of such an important organization like the Red Cross has led many to question the effectiveness of NGOs and how to improve the aide system.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-some-foreign-ngos-failed-haiti/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/young-professionals-in-foreign-policy/haitis-multi-billion-doll_b_8207494.html