IRLS414 American Military Gun Control Policy Recommendation Paper

Question Description

This week, you will hand in Parts 2 and 3 of the final assignment.(PLEASE SEE ATTACHED FOR PART ONE)

Part 2: Video Presentation:( TRANSCRIPT)

In the video presentation, you will provide an analytical discussion and conclude with an actual policy recommendation (no more than 10 minutes in length). You must create a transcript of the video with scholarly references included, but you do not need to speak the references. You can use the Media Gallery tab on the left side of the classroom to upload your video presentation. You also may use the webcam feature in the Media Gallery to record your video presentation, or you may use Screencast-0-Matic audio and video. This assignment will be a video of you – your voice, your face. Please make sure you are prepared for the technology required to complete the assignment. Practice early in the term with a mock video and then reach out to me or Classroom Support if you are having trouble. Please add this to your Media Collection and be sure to share it. Please label your file as follows: LastName.FirstName.Week8Assignment (note: is it very important to include your name!)

Discussion:

  • Discuss the alternatives to the current policy option by enumerating and explaining each policy option in turn. You should present several policy alternatives, and they must be serious alternatives. The alternatives presented must be serious contenders that have been weighed in terms of pros and cons.
  • Pros and cons of each policy option should be discussed next. Identify the political, economic, and security implications for each option. Each policy option should be compared and contrasted to the other options as well as to the current policy. The analysis should seriously consider the feasibility of implementation, not only in terms of economic or strategic implications, but also in terms of political feasibility. There are always going to be some benefits and some costs to any policy proposal – there is no proposal so good that it does not have some costs associated with it. Trade-offs are the heart of the policy process.

Recommendation:

  • Clearly identify which option will be recommended and which options will be discounted.
  • Clearly lay out the argument for why that option is better than each of the others.
  • Support your arguments with both quantitative and qualitative evidence from academic literature.

Part 3: Written Transcript and Executive Summary:

Written transcript: In creating the video, it is easier to write your script first and then create the video. Write as if you are preparing an analytical essay, but edit the language and tone for video presentation. Upload your transcript to the Week 8 assignment folder as a Word document. Don’t forget to include the in-text references and a References List, just like a normal academic paper. (Do not speak the in-text references – just skip over them in the video. If it’s important for your audience to know whose work you are citing, add something like “Stephen Walt suggests that foreign policy should …”.)

Executive summary: This component will consist of a 150-word written executive summary, which you will post in the Week 8 forum. It is due by 11:55 pm Eastern time on Thursday of Week 8.

The executive summary should include the following information:

  1. A statement of current policy;
  2. Reasons for initiation changes;
  3. Policy options to be considered; and
  4. Recommended course of action.

Be prepared to defend your reasoning for the new policy in the Week 8 forum, including pros and cons of the alternatives

Unformatted Attachment Preview

LESSON 7: TRANSNATIONAL ISSUES, PART I Introduction In the next two lessons we will be focusing on transnational issues. In this particular lesson, our concentration will be on nuclear non-proliferation. You will find that there are some diverse perspectives on this topic and different authors will approach the problem from different worldviews, and therefore propose different solutions. Keep an open mind while reading these perspectives and solutions on nuclear non-proliferation and try to use this information to develop your own perspective on the topic. Nuclear Proliferation Of all the security issues facing the world community, proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the thorniest. This week we will pay particular attention to efforts to address the issue of proliferation, dealing with states such as Iran and North Korea. As you contemplate this week’s discussion forum question, it will be useful to watch the short YouTube video, “Nuclear Weapons: Creating and Enforcing Global Rules” by the Global Policy Forum, which you can find in this week’s Readings and Resources folder. North Korea Although our lesson readings primarily focus on Iran, an additional important issue involves North Korea’s rejection of the non-proliferation regime in 2003. North Korea agreed on October 31, 2006 to resume the Six Party negotiations which on Sept. 19, 2005 had produced an agreement for Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons programs in exchange for economic, diplomatic and energy incentives from the other parties. North Korea began to back away from that agreement soon after it was reached and refused to attend the six-party talks for nearly a year, blaming U.S. financial sanctions. The maps below illustrate (1) the estimated range of missiles in the North Korean arsenal, and (2) North Korean weapons in an unclear stage of development. 2/2 • Addressing Proliferation What are the most effective elements or strategies to combat the spread of nuclear weapons? How should the United States and the rest of the international community handle states like Iran and North Korea? This will be the subject of our discussion forum this week. There are several different viewpoints presented in this week’s readings regarding what strategy the international community should take in dealing with the issue of nuclear proliferation, and some of those viewpoints are highly controversial. In reading the articles, please take some notes to help you formulate a position on what would be an effective strategy. Although there are many ways that the international community can address proliferation, analysts such as John S. Park focus on the idea of scrutinizing partnerships more closely, and, more specifically, the partnership between Iran and North Korea. He argues that the current frameworks that states use in understanding proliferation need to be updated, such that strategies can adapt to new realities that sometimes involve joint ventures among states wishing to “go nuclear.” Increasingly, analysts are calling for a more integrated approach to analyzing proliferation — one that acknowledges the inter-relations among the different actors involved. For example, analysts tend to view the supply of components and materials, the logistics of getting these materials to the right places, and the procurement of resources to help fund a nuclear program as separate activities. However, some experts have called for these pieces of the puzzle to be viewed and analyzed more holistically. As John S. Park writes, “An integrated approach to analyzing the full life cycle of a North Korean–Iranian transaction is long overdue— and now possible given access to key defectors in Seoul who have worked in North Korean state trading companies.” Once viewed more holistically, policymakers can then envision new actions that can potentially disrupt any single section in the cycle. In contrast to relying mainly on sanctions, states may opt to target private companies in third-party countries — the “middlemen” when it comes to transactions that make the development of nuclear programs possible. This would require a greater understanding of how partnerships function with regard to missile development programs undertaken and carried out in different countries. Knowledge Check 1 Question 1 Which country agreed to resume the Six Party negotiations on October 31, 2006? Iran China Russia North Korea Correct Show next question You answered 1 out of 1 correctly. Asking up to 2. Well done! North Korea agreed on October 31, 2006 to resume the Six Party negotiations which on Sept. 19, 2005 had produced an agreement for Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons programs in exchange for economic, diplomatic and energy incentives from the other parties. North Korea began to back away from that agreement soon after it was reached and refused to attend the sixparty talks for nearly a year, blaming U.S. financial sanctions. Conclusion I want to emphasize that, like many international problems, there is no panacea when it comes to addressing the issue of nuclear proliferation. Different authors approach the problem from different worldviews, and therefore propose different solutions. You will be exposed to some of those diverse perspectives in the reading this week. It’s important to develop your own point of view on the issue – one that is informed by the literature. It is perfectly fine to propose different ways of addressing certain parts of the issue, or alternatively, a holistic strategy that approaches proliferation on a broader level. In contemplating different strategies, it will be important to consider this question: what is it that is driving the desire to attain nuclear weapons in the first place? This can help us focus on root causes. References Park, John S. “The Leap in North Korea’s Ballistic Missile Program: The Iran Factor.” The National Bureau of Asian Research, December 2012. Image Citations “Estimated range of missiles in the North Korean arsenal” by APUS. “Weapons in unclear stage of development” by APUS. LESSON 7: TRANSNATIONAL ISSUES, PART I Introduction In the next two lessons we will be focusing on transnational issues. In this particular lesson, our concentration will be on nuclear non-proliferation. You will find that there are some diverse perspectives on this topic and different authors will approach the problem from different worldviews, and therefore propose different solutions. Keep an open mind while reading these perspectives and solutions on nuclear non-proliferation and try to use this information to develop your own perspective on the topic. Nuclear Proliferation Of all the security issues facing the world community, proliferation of nuclear weapons is one of the thorniest. This week we will pay particular attention to efforts to address the issue of proliferation, dealing with states such as Iran and North Korea. As you contemplate this week’s discussion forum question, it will be useful to watch the short YouTube video, “Nuclear Weapons: Creating and Enforcing Global Rules” by the Global Policy Forum, which you can find in this week’s Readings and Resources folder. North Korea Although our lesson readings primarily focus on Iran, an additional important issue involves North Korea’s rejection of the non-proliferation regime in 2003. North Korea agreed on October 31, 2006 to resume the Six Party negotiations which on Sept. 19, 2005 had produced an agreement for Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons programs in exchange for economic, diplomatic and energy incentives from the other parties. North Korea began to back away from that agreement soon after it was reached and refused to attend the six-party talks for nearly a year, blaming U.S. financial sanctions. The maps below illustrate (1) the estimated range of missiles in the North Korean arsenal, and (2) North Korean weapons in an unclear stage of development. 2/2 • Addressing Proliferation What are the most effective elements or strategies to combat the spread of nuclear weapons? How should the United States and the rest of the international community handle states like Iran and North Korea? This will be the subject of our discussion forum this week. There are several different viewpoints presented in this week’s readings regarding what strategy the international community should take in dealing with the issue of nuclear proliferation, and some of those viewpoints are highly controversial. In reading the articles, please take some notes to help you formulate a position on what would be an effective strategy. Although there are many ways that the international community can address proliferation, analysts such as John S. Park focus on the idea of scrutinizing partnerships more closely, and, more specifically, the partnership between Iran and North Korea. He argues that the current frameworks that states use in understanding proliferation need to be updated, such that strategies can adapt to new realities that sometimes involve joint ventures among states wishing to “go nuclear.” Increasingly, analysts are calling for a more integrated approach to analyzing proliferation — one that acknowledges the inter-relations among the different actors involved. For example, analysts tend to view the supply of components and materials, the logistics of getting these materials to the right places, and the procurement of resources to help fund a nuclear program as separate activities. However, some experts have called for these pieces of the puzzle to be viewed and analyzed more holistically. As John S. Park writes, “An integrated approach to analyzing the full life cycle of a North Korean–Iranian transaction is long overdue— and now possible given access to key defectors in Seoul who have worked in North Korean state trading companies.” Once viewed more holistically, policymakers can then envision new actions that can potentially disrupt any single section in the cycle. In contrast to relying mainly on sanctions, states may opt to target private companies in third-party countries — the “middlemen” when it comes to transactions that make the development of nuclear programs possible. This would require a greater understanding of how partnerships function with regard to missile development programs undertaken and carried out in different countries. Knowledge Check 1 Question 1 Which country agreed to resume the Six Party negotiations on October 31, 2006? Iran China Russia North Korea Correct Show next question You answered 1 out of 1 correctly. Asking up to 2. Well done! North Korea agreed on October 31, 2006 to resume the Six Party negotiations which on Sept. 19, 2005 had produced an agreement for Pyongyang to give up its nuclear weapons programs in exchange for economic, diplomatic and energy incentives from the other parties. North Korea began to back away from that agreement soon after it was reached and refused to attend the sixparty talks for nearly a year, blaming U.S. financial sanctions. Conclusion I want to emphasize that, like many international problems, there is no panacea when it comes to addressing the issue of nuclear proliferation. Different authors approach the problem from different worldviews, and therefore propose different solutions. You will be exposed to some of those diverse perspectives in the reading this week. It’s important to develop your own point of view on the issue – one that is informed by the literature. It is perfectly fine to propose different ways of addressing certain parts of the issue, or alternatively, a holistic strategy that approaches proliferation on a broader level. In contemplating different strategies, it will be important to consider this question: what is it that is driving the desire to attain nuclear weapons in the first place? This can help us focus on root causes. References Park, John S. “The Leap in North Korea’s Ballistic Missile Program: The Iran Factor.” The National Bureau of Asian Research, December 2012. Image Citations “Estimated range of missiles in the North Korean arsenal” by APUS. “Weapons in unclear stage of development” by APUS. …

Place this order or similar order and get an amazing discount. USE Discount code “GET20” for 20% discount