Philip Nichols' E-Portfolio

My name is Philip Nichols and I am a student at Pennsylvania State University (Class of 2015). I am majoring in International Politics with a focus in National Security, and I hope to minor in German, Security and Risk Analysis, and Global Security. Throughout the completion of this degree, I hope to use this e-portfolio as a collection of my best written work, speeches, and blogs. I plan to continue to add to this e-portfolio in the coming years, so by the end of my education here at Penn State, this will be a full overview of my best work.

Here is a link to my e-portfolio: Philip Nichols' E-Portfolio 

Rhetoric of having a Nuclear Weapon

Everyone that has grown up in the United States has interpreted the possession of nuclear weapons as a bad connotation. Then why do other countries pursue the possession of a nuclear weapon as if it is the Holy Grail? The real answer, it is looked upon as a measure of prestige, but not only that, it is looked upon as a measure of defense. There is a very tight knit club in the world that has the possession of nuclear weapons, and other countries that aren’t in that club look upon it with envy. This club is one that lists as its members the most powerful nations in the world, so what nation wouldn’t aspire to its membership? The next and more important reason is that the possession of a nuclear weapon deters potential attackers. Just knowing that your enemy has a nuclear weapon will cause you to think twice about attacking them, because then they could use their nuclear weapon against you. This aspect was key in Libya, as Gaddafi had relinquished his nuclear weapons efforts several years before the Arab Spring. Some argue that if he had kept these nuclear weapons, the U.S. wouldn’t have proceeded in its aid towards Libya’s rebels. These two aspects, a symbol of prestige and as a defense, are the two major reasons why a country will attempt to gain control of a nuclear weapon. So if nuclear weapons are sign of prestige, why does every American grow up seeing nuclear weapons with a negative connotation? The answer is that other countries having possession of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable in the mentality of the U.S. The U.S. and other countries that are a part of the closely knit group that possess nuclear weapons, believe that they should be the only ones to have possession. They feel that other countries cannot be depended upon to use their weapons wisely. The images of death and destruction are what comes to an American’s mind, because in America they are solely seen as such, while in North Korea nuclear weapons are seen as prestige and power. This difference really comes from the spin the governments of these respective countries put on their efforts to attain such weapons, and that is why the connotation is so different in these countries.

Rhetoric of North Korea

This week my SRA professor called the North Koreans “Masters of Extortion”. It took me a second to think about, but this is very true, they absolutely are Masters of Extortion. So it made me wonder, how can they get away with all that they do? For example, only a month or so ago North Korea made a deal with the United States so that the US would give them food and in return they would suspend their nuclear weapons testing. This looked like a promising proposition to the US, but now in the coming days North Korea plans on testing a “missile”. Many feel this breaks the contract between the U.S. and North Korea, so how are they able to get away with it? In the simplest terms, North Korea is too crazy and erratic to predict. If the US attempted to punish North Korea, North Korea might very well retaliate with a nuclear weapon, one can never know. It is the last part of that sentence that scares the U.S. and other major world powers from punishing North Korea. The consequences of punishing North Korea far exceed the consequences of just continuing on the same course. So in the end will North Korea get away with this “missile” test? Of course. Why? Because they have mastered the art of extortion. The ethos they have surrounded themselves with is one of confidence, they are renowned as mavericks. Their style of government also allows them to continue this tradition. Recently political scientists have found that the North Korean leader only needs to satisfy about 70 people and he can stay in power. This allows the North Korean leader to pretty much run the government as he sees fit as long as those 70 people are satisfied. This definitely aides his ability to create the ethos that he has created surrounding his government.

Rhetoric of Hacking

              With the mass growth of computer technology in recent years, hacking has become more and more a common problem amongst all computer users. There is a negative connotation around the realm of hacking, because by its very nature it is criminal. Hacking is the stealing of information by one person from another. But when is it acceptable? Over the past few years, Sky News has been caught hacking into emails in order to get information for their news stories. Sky News Chief, John Ryley, deems this acquiring of information as “responsible journalism”. Only later they did turn in the information they had found to the authorities. Is this an instance where hacking is acceptable? If they hadn’t hacked into the emails they, including the authorities, may have never gotten the information, but on the other hand they delayed in giving the information to the authorities so that they could publish their articles first. Another very recent instance is the Wikileaks problem. Was that an acceptable hacking? In my opinion that hack was the biggest stab to the back that America has had in a long time. Of course anyone can say they were doing it for the people of America. That is the ignorant thing to say. At the end of the day some secrets need and must stay secret, for the benefit of the world not just the American people. Wikileaks screwed over a lot of hard working diplomats that already have a tough job as it is.

 It is my opinion that hacking is wrong, but in the same manner that stealing or lying is wrong. Is it bad? Yes. Is it going to happen? Of course it’s going to happen. China and the US have currently been going through their own personal hacking war. Although this war has been kept in the shadows, do not be fooled that it does not exist. Hacking is one thing that will never lose its negative connotation, no matter how much it “helps the good people of the world.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/murdochs-news-intl-challenges-sienna-miller-over-legal-costs-person-close-to-case-says/2012/04/05/gIQAaqrxwS_story.html