tom pilat- Risk

Risk captures so many aspects of International Relations, and outlines a lot of what was discussed in class throughout the semester. On the first day of class, we discussed some definitions and aspects of relations. It was decided that relations can be boiled down to a few main points. The points being great powers interacting, war, diplomacy, trade, and organizations. Risk nails just about all of these points. Declaring war, trading with allies, having a world council, and interacting with allies all take part in our version of Risk. International relations is typically about relations between states, and Risk is based upon making relationships with allies and using this relationship to help in times of war to get to their country’s main end goal.
A slight piece of anarchy could be shown in our version of Risk, but we didn’t encounter that too often. While we did have a group break off and form a schism, at the end of every round, no one really voted out their leader for a new one. This game of Risk also showcases different ideologies of International Relations. A democratic liberal approach was seen through the black team, when they didn’t fight at all and became allies with every team. A realist approach is also heavily seen through the other teams, especially blue. Using a militaristic approach to try and accomplish their goal and coerce other teams to play to their style in an attempt to stop them.
I liked this version of Risk, because it catered a lot to the things we discussed in class. I also liked how teams also had different special abilities that shapes the way they have to play the game. I didn’t really like how we didn’t know other teams end goal though. It kind of limits you defensively if you think you are doing something that betters your country, but you could just be making circumstances worse because end goals aren’t known.
All in all, I think you should keep risk in the course because it is a good wrap up experience of the course.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog Post 4 - Yousuf Sander

Global terror has plagued the international community in increasing frequency and tragedy for the last two decades. The rise of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and others have left thousands dead and given rise to new fear, and an elusive enemy. These groups have used ever more brutal tactics to stage devastating attacks on civilians in both their home countries and abroad. In the early 2000s, the U.S. began a so-called “ War On Terror ” to combat the rise of such groups, only to have the even more dangerous organization of ISIS rise out of the ashes of our own operations in Iraq. These groups are hard to fight and even harder to dismantle, so what are our options in the War on Terror? I believe that the problem stems from the ostracized environment in which immigrant Middle eastern communities exist in the West.   As long as we continue to marginalize Muslim communities in the U.S. and Europe, we will continue to be fostering an environment that makes it easy for terrorist gr...
Read more

Blog 3 Jared Rostkowski Why NAFTA is not "The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever"

Why NAFTA isn't “The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever” Jared Rostkowski On September 25th 2016 during the first presidential debate of 2016, then Presidential candidate Donald Trump described the North American Free Trade Agreement as “The worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, maybe ever.” NAFTA is the trade agreement between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, which eliminated tariffs between the three countries. Trump has continued to voice his displeasure with the trade deal, mostly with Mexico. Anyway, NAFTA is not the worst trade deal in the history of trade deals, in fact, it is actually a trade deal that the 3 countries benefit greatly from the trade deal, and we should not pull out of it anytime soon.  So what does Trump dislike about the deal. His main displeasure comes with the fact that many companies from the U.S. are moving manufacturing to Mexico, to take advantage of Mexico’s cheap labor. Trump argued that companies like For...
Read more
Yousuf Sander                          Why Syrian Intervention is a Bad Play for the U.S. Foreign intervention has become a staple policy choice if the United States since the early decades of the 20 th century. Time and time again, we have intervened in order to protect our interests, installing dictators in Latin America, toppling them in the middle east, all in order to protect our foreign interests. However, what is the right course of action when a crisis occurs that does not put our interests at stake? How, as the world ’ s foremost superpower, can we sit by and do nothing as the crisis evolves in Syria? Though intervention may seem like the obvious choice, we must weigh the costs, and our decision must be strategically based and thought out. For this reason, I don ’ t believe intervention is the right option due to the reactionary and impulsive nature ...
Read more