Final Simulation

Today was our last class and the end of the final simulation. This portion was definitely my favorite because we were done with the videos and got to debate. I thought that the other groups had some interesting points, but it was also a little bit frustrating for me. As Venezuela, my group had to argue against everybody and since I knew we were going to get outvoted it seemed a little bit pointless to argue. Nevertheless, I really enjoyed the simulation.

Our main point about sovereignty is something that I’ve been thinking about. On the one hand, it sucks that a country would have to conform to world bank standards even if the could come up with a plausible alternative (the Venezuelan way y’all ;D) but on the other hand the world bank does need to come up with some type of criteria to look at when allocating money and giving loans.

Future predictions

I find Stephenson’s view of the future somewhat plausible. As far as technology goes, I would almost wonder if he was psychic. Not only did he foresee the internet and some of the subculture that goes along with it, but he also predicted to some extent underarmour (a strong and elastic yet very breathable material) which kind of impressed me. It is hard for me to imagine life without any of the technology we have today though, and I’m pretty sure I missed some of his other technological foresight because I just assumed that it was already in existence.

I don’t believe that Stephenson’s imaginary communities will ever become reality. He seems to predict that as globalization progresses and different cultures are forced to interact, they will feel threatened by one another and retreat into ethnically similar communities. I think this is true to some extent. Some books I am reading now on globalization and religion cite the insecurity that is caused by globalization for the recent growth of Islam. People in the Middle East are confronted with western ideas and technology that threaten their ways of lives, and they turn to religion for assurance. However, there is no reason that people cannot have a strong ethnic or religious identity and still be tolerant of one another. My prediction for the future would be almost the complete opposite of Stephenson’s in this aspect. I would predict that as cultures interact more and more with one another they would begin to mix and become more tolerant with one another. Instead isolating themselves within their own ethnic groups, I predict that people will mix so much that there will only be one ‘race’ of people. When cultures intermix so much and people intermarry there is also the question of how the child will be raised. I would predict that this could lead to one more common religion as parents of two different religions raise children.

I also had a problem with the general chaos that was caused by everything being a franchise. I wouldn’t enjoy living in that type of a world, and I imagine that many people feel the same way. If things were to ever move to this extreme I think that people would express their discontent and we would move towards the other extreme, keeping us at equilibrium between government and consumerism in the long term. The same goes for the ability to sue for just about everything. At a certain point people will get fed up with things and put a stop to them.

Stephenson did do a great job with the technology for the future, but I see his other predictions of more of a social commentary. He parodies the way things are today to make people think about things that that they might not otherwise think about.

Wider Horizons

I believe that Todorov made a good point in his quote. Knowing what one sees first hand is only the first level of knowledge. People who only have this perspective on the world cannot make informed decisions because they may know very little about the world outside of their little ‘bubble’ that they live in and can see the workings of first hand. They make decisions based on how it would affect their own world, but these decisions are not informed because they cannot foresee results that are not obvious.

The second type of person (the man for which each country is as his own) has achieved the second level of knowledge, He is able to view issues in the context of how it will affect his world, how it will affect someone else’s world, and how it may affect his own world indirectly. He has a wider base of knowledge than the first man and is able to understand international issues with a broader perspective. However, he still only views problems in the context of the effects it will have on him.

The third type of person has the highest level of thinking. I would define the third type of person in the same way that Runners World defines an advanced runner. Unlike the intermediate runner who is obsessed with running and plans his whole day around his run, the advanced runner is able to go for a run once a day, enjoy it, and leave it at that. The person for whom the whole world is as a foreign country is like an elite runner because he is able to step back from things and pass judgment without involving his emotions.

I think that Todorov had the right idea with this because people who are not emotionally involved in issues often have the clearest perspectives. However, I do wonder where one could find the third type of person. My perception is that the majority of people who are knowledgeable about international relations have emotions about most of the issues because international relations issues have such broad consequences. It would be hard to find a person that wouldn’t be affected by an issue. So although I think that Todorov was right, I don’t necessarily think that he was practical in this context.

cortez on trial

This week it was my group’s turn to teach the class, and I think it went fairly well. People were frustrated because they weren’t sure whether they should use present day laws or the laws of the time to argue their cases. Even though it was frustrating, I think it was a good representation of justice on the world stage. Sometimes in less clear-cut cases it is not clear to anyone whose laws will be followed and which party is in the wrong. The theme of justice coupled with our visit to the American Indian Museum made me think about the how American Indians could have been given justice and the constraints that culture barriers generate. I think that a lot of times, ‘justice’ isn’t really justice. It is the best we can do under the circumstances, but in the end one or more of the groups involved gets the raw end of the deal. It seems like there must be some way to make things fair, but even if there was, fairness is not always justice.

I surprised myself when I began to think that Cortez was not at fault during the trial. The defense made some good points that I had not thought of before, and if I had been the jury I might have acquitted him. But the problem is, whether or not Cortez could justify what he did or blame it on someone else, thousands of American Indians were slaughtered as a result of his actions. Is justice an eye for an eye, the attempt to make things as right as possible after the fact, holding someone responsible for something that they were not at fault for or something else? After the Europeans had already conquered the Americas, there wasn’t much that one could do to fix things. It wasn’t fair that any land was taken from its rightful owners, but it wouldn’t be fair to take the land away from people who had started a new life there and had no part in the killing either.

I wish my signature was as cool as Columbus's

Ok, so for the most part, Columbus’s way of knowing was through what he was told, what he read in the bible, and assumptions that he made about things that he saw for himself. For the most part what we know comes from what we are told, the bible, and assumptions that we make about things we see ourselves. Most people, both in the presence and the past, don’t base their knowledge on scientific knowledge that they have gathered on their own, but rather on things that people have told them. Therefore, I don’t think that our way of knowing is any better. The difference is our technology available. We have new technology available so we base our knowledge on the things that science tells us. In the past, they also based things on what science told them, but they didn’t have the same scientific knowledge that we have today. To answer the question, I ultimately think that our way is not better than Columbus’s way of knowing because we use the same methodology. We base what we believe in on science and things that can be reasoned through logically, and so did Columbus. His chain of thought that lead him to believe that Central America had gold correlated with the common beliefs of the time. Now, due to technology, we don’t believe that to be true. However, some beliefs that we have now are just as likely to be disproven in the future. Also, in class we talked a lot about how Columbus saw things as he thought they should be rather than how they actually were. While this may not be the ‘right’ way of thinking, we still do that today. Stereotypes are one example of this. We assume things about people to make sense of things that we are not personally familiar with. It makes the foreign thing seem more manageable. This is the same thing Columbus did with the mermaid. He used the only knowledge that he had of something to make sense of what was completely foreign. Although he was not actually seeing a mermaid, it was the only thing he could conceive. While technology can change, our basic thought process and way of knowing stays the same, and therefore our way of knowing cannot be any better or worse than it was during the time of Columbus.

speaking of ir theory...

I found this comic courtesy of stumbleupon, the greatest tool of procrastination ever created. If anyone wants to write a virus for my blog comments...

On another note, this week I was pretty excited because I started researching my college writing essay. You may ask, “Excited for homework? Excited for a 12 page essay in college writing?”

Ok, so maybe excited isn’t exactly the right word. But it did interest me because the research I’m doing apparently ties right in with IR theory. For our final research paper, I decided to write about the effects of globalization on religion and the way that religion can influence globalization. As soon as I googled it, a ton of stuff relating to IR and religion popped up on the screen. It was really neat to me because I could apply things that I learned in our class to my college writing paper, which is an experience I never had in high school.

It also tied right in with our conversation with Krista Tippet, which I thought was a great experience. I grew up with a jewish mother and a christian father, and because of that my own personal faith is still something that I am exploring. However, it is something that can be hard to talk about, even though I don't have a clear stance or strong feelings one way or the other. I love learning about religions, but I'm usually afraid that I will offend someone by asking them about their own beliefs. Thats why I thought that it would be a neat idea to create a forum for discussion within our UC. I'm excited for Alex's pasta and I hope everyone comes!

infrastructure vs. basic needs

The solution to poverty is not an obvious one. Church groups, community service organizations, and NGO’s have been working relentlessly in an attempt to end poverty, but it is not enough. Ultimately, the government of a country is the only entity that has the power to end poverty in that nation permanently. Aid can help a family survive for a day; infrastructural changes such as availability of higher education that allows people to get jobs will help a family survive for life. However, it is the situation of the chicken and the egg. Without wealth, a government cannot organize infrastructure to help its citizens, and without an effective social and economic structure the government cannot gain the wealth necessary to make these changes. I think that in situations such as these, it is the responsibility of the international community to act. The international community can offer monetary or infrastructural support to nations that are struggling to grow, especially in nations that have stable governments and only need a push in the right direction.

However, the reason for poverty in many countries is not usually due to a lack of resources or the need of resources such as the technology for genetic engineered crops. In many cases, the reason for poverty is the unstable infrastructure of the government. When there is no clear leader or the structure of the government is so unstable, it can be difficult to direct the aid in the direction that it is needed. Obviously resilient crops or good schools cannot be utilized in places where people are forced out of their homes and into refugee camps due to internal strife. On the same note, it would be a waste of resources to feed the children of a village every day when there are steps that can be taken to make them self-sufficient.

The conclusion that I have come to is that the method of attacking poverty has to be tailored to each separate nation. Different nations have different needs and thus we must approach them differently. In some cases it may make more sense to temporarily abandon humanitarian aid in order to make a lasting change, but in other cases day-to-day aid is the only effective means to combat poverty.

To end with a quote from jusxtapose, “Trees treed rule!!!1!”

povery, education, and equal opportunity

Our visit to Bread for the City was one of my favorite labs so far. Poverty is something that I see very little of in my day-to-day life, so when I encounter it first hand it impacts me more than it probably affects a person who encounters it every day. To me it is incomprehensible that we, in one of the richest countries in the world, could allow our own citizens to live without adequate food or shelter. The worst part of it is that many or our homeless are veterans, people who have served our country and who our country has let down. To quote tupac, “You know it's funny when it rains it pours/They got money for wars, but can't feed the poor/Say there ain't no hope for the youth and the truth is/it ain't no hope for the future”

Which leads me into what I actually wanted to talk about: education. During our visit to the Anacostia Museum we had the opportunity to hear about the inequalities of the education system from a first person source. There is no argument that poor education contributes to poverty, so why aren’t we doing more to improve the education system in poorer communities like Anacostia? I know that there are a variety of programs dedicated to improving education in poorer communities, but it shouldn’t be the responsibility of non-profits and volunteers. Mayor Fenty took direct control over the public school system in an attempt to improve D.C.’s public schools, but I am not sure to what extent the changes being made will even the playing field. America is supposed to be a place where everyone has the opportunity to rise above circumstances and make a life for him or herself. However, our government, which should ensure that everyone has an opportunity, actually hinders opportunity by creating a system that is impossible to beat.

I've been thinking about this, and I would specifically like to ask Jasmine for her input because she talks a lot about personal freedoms and the effect large government can have on these freedoms. Can’t the expansion of government, when done correctly, allow for more freedoms? I guess what it boils down to is that there is more than one type of freedom. Is it more important for an individual to be able to decide how to spend his or her money, or should the government decide for us in order to give people more freedom within society?

Wealth, as defined by Amanda

I disagree with the Ruggie’s definition of wealth being full employment. Wealth of the individual and wealth of a nation can both partially depend on employment, but there are so many other aspects of wealth that can potentially be more important than full employment that the definition of wealth cannot be restricted to this one factor.

Employment is crucial to an individual becoming wealthy, however employment does not automatically translate into wealth. An individual must be well educated, willing to do a ‘dirty job’, or possess a valued skill in order to be successful in the work force. As we learned at Bread for the City, people can be employed, even in multiple jobs, but due to other factors such as the cost of living, unavoidable debts, multiple dependents, etc they are still not wealthy. On the other hand, someone with a well-paying job or a wealth family could be able to live on wages made from relatively few hours of work per week.

On the nation-wide level circumstances are much the same. A high employment rate may not translate into the wealth on the global scale due to factors such as the lack of natural resources or an inferior workforce. This point can be exemplified by the Soviet Union. As a communist state, the Soviet Union had very high employment rates but was not wealthy compared to other first world countries (Perry tells me that the proper term is a second world). This was due both to a lack of resources and to improper use of what resources were available. The Soviet Union used its resources for weaponry and defense purposes rather than devoting them to projects that would increase the standard of living within the country.

So, while employment is important to both individual and national wealth, there are many other factors, both controllable and circumstantial, that affect wealth and the ability to accumulate wealth.

Real vs. Percieved Security

Is there a difference between being secure and feeling secure? Yes, I think there is a huge difference. Actual security does not ever have to correlate with the public’s perception of security. Most people felt secure before September 11, but obviously the United States was more vulnerable towards terrorism than the general public realized. After September 11 many people began to fear terrorism while our leaders made claims that the United States is actually safer due to the war on terror. Assuming that what our leaders say is true, the public perception of security was misguided in both cases.

Whether or not it is effective, our governments security programs’ goals are to maintain and increase our security, not just to appease the public. Yes, maybe people should worry more about heart disease. It is one of the biggest killers in America and there are concrete steps that can be taken to prevent it. But just like heart disease, people should worry about terrorism. It has the potential to change the way our country is run and the way we live our lives, and there are concrete steps that can be taken to prevent terrorism. If the general public stopped hearing about heart disease and the things that help prevent it, the lack of education would most likely lead to an increase in heart disease. Likewise, if the government stopped trying to prevent terrorism, the lack of preventative measures would almost definitely lead to a sharp increase in terrorism. That being said, I do think that public perception is an important subset of actual security. It is something that makes the United States an enjoyable place to live and is a key part of our society. I think that the focus on terrorism still cannot make us 100% secure and our government’s efforts are often misguided, but to write security off as a perception rather than a goal to be achieved is a much more serious mistake.

Security Obscurity

Some kinds of threats can be obvious while other spring up out of nowhere to surprise you. One kind you can prepare for, while the other takes you completely off guard. It is impossible for a nation’s society to be strong in every aspect. Therefore, preparing and defending one’s self against one type of threat has the potential to take attention away from a critical weakness that will not even be realized until the damage has been done.

That being said, I’ll stick to my position in class and say that while it is impossible for a nation to be completely, 100%, without the remote possibility of insecurity, secure national security is still a concrete idea that a nation can strive towards. There are different ways of going about security, and with each method comes different concerns and potential threats.

Guns and Privacy

This past week left me a lot to reflect on. I wasn’t planning to reflect on the gun control issue, but reading other reflections reminded me that there were a few comments on the issue that I wasn’t able to make in class.

I’d like to talk about what Professor Jackson said about people who have had experience with firearms being more moderate about the issue. I learned to shoot a rifle when I was in middle school and have many friends and family members who own and shoot guns. In knowing these people, I’ve noticed a lot about the attitudes towards guns that surprised me. My dad, the most pacifistic, anti-violence, even anti-shooting-at-each-other-with-toy-guns person is actually the one to take my brother to the firing range and to Scheels to admire the guns. Probably because of being raised with this attitude, whenever I leave my airsoft gun lying around my brother takes it very seriously and is always the first one to remind me that the safety isn’t on or that you should always treat a gun like it is loaded.

On the other side of things, I’ve also met people who leave real and toy guns lying around in a house full of kids (I can’t tell the difference, can the elementary school kid tell?) Having these experiences haven’t exactly made me a moderate on the issue, but it has made me more moderate. I am at the point of being an extremist proponent for gun control. If you ask me, there is no good reason for a civilian to own a gun. Hunting? Use a bow, its better sport anyway. Protection? If no one had a gun we wouldn’t need such quick access to lethal force. What confuses me is that I’ve seen both responsible and irresponsible use of guns. Some people are responsible with guns, so how is it fair to tell them that they are not allowed to own one? And how is it fair to let put children in such an unsafe environment? Because of this I wouldn’t advocate for the banning of all firearms, even though that is my own personal view. Oh, and for any of the females who weren’t so into the ‘gun porn’ in class, how about this?


I also wanted to bring up something that a bunch of us were talking about after class on Friday. Somebody mentioned that the U.K. is one of the most watched countries with something like a surveillance camera for every six people. While things aren’t quite as extreme in the United States as they are in the U.K., the rise of technology makes it easier than ever to track individuals. I think we all recognize that some amount of surveillance is necessary for security, but there is also a definite line that can be crossed. The American people need to decide where that line is and the American government needs to respect it, otherwise there is nothing stopping us from another situation similar to the red scare of the 1950’s.

economy in relation to national security = positive correlation

So will the global financial crisis affect our security? I think so. In thinking about the position of the United States relative to the rest of the world, I vaguely remembered something I learned back in American History about the post-world war II economy and the United States assisting Europe’s reconstruction. The United States was in the best position financially after WWII and thus was in the best position negotiation-wise. We gave a large amount of financial support to the British and the value of the pound was largely dependent on our support. The U.S. didn’t hesitate to use this advantage when negotiating with G.B. or other parts of Western Europe, just as I think other countries will jump at the chance to take advantage of any financial weakness of the United States.
I see things as being similar in the current financial crisis. Someone will come out on top, and it may not be the United States. Whoever is on top will most likely have a huge influence on the United States, and the possibility is high that we would have to choose between various national interests and our economy. Furthermore, a weak economy can not only affect our status as a hegemony, it can also affect our physical security. Wars, weapons, and intelligence are all extremely costly yet extremely necessary to maintain our territorial integrity.

feminism anyone?

This week in class Adam made a comment about gender neutrality in reference to the feminist movement and Rachel devoted 258 words of her reflection to feminism. Both of them, as well as other people in the class, had thoughts about feminism that I disagree with. I don’t know if my definition of feminism is different than other peoples, or even just plain wrong, but I thought it would be worth putting my thoughts out there.
To me, feminism is many things. It is the movement towards lessening the inequalities between the sexes, the action taken to alleviate the struggles of women, the belief that both sexes should be allowed equal opportunity, both in the eyes of the law as well as in the eyes of society. However, there are also many things that feminism isn’t (or shouldn’t) be. In my eyes, there are two major misconceptions of what feminism seeks to do. The first is that the feminist belief in equal opportunity for both sexes should lead to the belief in the sameness of both sexes. Biological differences influence both the physical characteristics and the cognitive process of the individual. Although these differences do not make one sex superior, these differences should be recognized.
The second idea that I see as anti-feminist is that feminism should try to change the way women are viewed in the sexual sense. Many women think that they are being objectified by men, but in all honesty, how many of you girls can say that you’ve never said a guy was hot, had nice muscles, or set Juanes as your desktop (ok ok, I’ll admit that I’m the guilty culprit on the last one). The problem does not come from women being seen as sexual beings, or even sexual objects to a point, but when rather when they are seen only in a sexual context. It goes back to the idea that gender differences should be appreciated.
After all of the talk about society’s perceptions, I actually don’t think that the main objective of feminism should be to change the way females are viewed by society. Rather, feminism should focus on women supporting women, especially when they break social norms. When women as a whole take each other seriously they greatly increase the power of each individual woman and in doing so change the perceptions as a whole in society.

Minor simulation reflection

To reflect on the simulation this week, I loved it. It was great to do something a little different than we do in most classes and be able to get creative. Like most other people though, I think it would have been more enjoyable to discuss a different topic, mostly because this was one that did not leave much room for persuasion. Most groups were set in what they believed, including the president who had to keep his constituents and major campaign contributors in mind.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7664866.stm
Last week, I trained my eyes to pick out certain words when skimming articles on domestic content. So, not surprisingly, when I saw this article on the BBC website, it caught my eye. Both sides had theories on what would happen if we were to repeal domestic content laws. People in favor of domestic content laws argued that American automobile manufacturers would not be able to stay in competition without domestic content laws, while those opposed argued that repealing domestic content laws would actually allow American companies to produce cars more cheaply and thus put them in a better position against foreign auto manufacturers.
The content of this article made me think that the groups opposed to domestic content laws were right. I agreed with them in the last blog post, but I wasn’t sure if their argument would stand up in the real world. Now I think it would. The fact that GM and Chrysler were thinking about merging even before the economic crisis made me realize just how badly these companies are doing. Hopefully the two companies would be able to survive independently because a merger would put a lot of people out of work. Anyway, now I’m really excited for our next simulation and the chance to go more into depth with the project!

Minor simulation reflection

To reflect on the simulation this week, I loved it. It was great to do something a little different than we do in most classes and be able to get creative. Like most other people though, I think it would have been more enjoyable to discuss a different topic, mostly because this was one that did not leave much room for persuasion. Most groups were set in what they believed, including the president who had to keep his constituents and major campaign contributors in mind.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7664866.stm
Last week, I trained my eyes to pick out certain words when skimming articles on domestic content. So, not surprisingly, when I saw this article on the BBC website, it caught my eye. Both sides had theories on what would happen if we were to repeal domestic content laws. People in favor of domestic content laws argued that American automobile manufacturers would not be able to stay in competition without domestic content laws, while those opposed argued that repealing domestic content laws would actually allow American companies to produce cars more cheaply and thus put them in a better position against foreign auto manufacturers.
The content of this article made me think that the groups opposed to domestic content laws were right. I agreed with them in the last blog post, but I wasn’t sure if their argument would stand up in the real world. Now I think it would. The fact that GM and Chrysler were thinking about merging even before the economic crisis made me realize just how badly these companies are doing. Hopefully the two companies would be able to survive independently because a merger would put a lot of people out of work. Anyway, now I’m really excited for our next simulation and the chance to go more into depth with the project!

Domestic Content? HELL NO!

The basis for my argument of which group did the best is based more on the process of elimination of groups that did not fully argue their points than on which groups argued their points the best. The first group I eliminated was the Sierra Club. In their defense, there was not much of an argument to be made that went beyond a moral standard. The consumers mostly ignored the other groups and focused on what they wanted, which did not do much to convince the other groups of their position. My group, the United Auto Workers, also had more of a moral argument which could eventually help the economy in the long run, but I don’t think we emphasized that point as well as we could have. That leaves the Foreign Auto Manufacturers and the American Auto Manufacturers.
Out of the two, I thought that the American Auto Manufacturers had the better argument. They were able to emphasize aspects that pleased many of the groups. For example, by getting rid of domestic content laws they were able to please the American citizens by creating more competition and thus driving prices down. It worked in their own best interest because they were able to produce parts more cheaply, and it pleased the Sierra club because they were able to produce more eco-friendly and fuel-efficient cars. Lastly, it pleased the Foreign Auto Manufacturers because it gave them a leg-up on the competition.
The American Auto Manufacturers were able to argue for their point of view without resorting to b.s. like a lot of the other groups did. They had solid research to back up their claims, and their argument made real sense. So, AAUW you’ve got me convinced. Away with those domestic content laws!

wait- our economy is important?

This week’s reading on the Bretton Woods system introduced me to a lot of new ideas in financial sector that I had never encountered before, and to tell the truth, had never cared about before. Even though I wasn’t particularly interested to begin with, I decided that I must slog through it, and to my surprise, I was actually really interested. However, terms such as pegged-rate and internal liquidity made absolutely no sense to me, even after reading the Wikipedia definitions. But hey, this is coming from the person who barely understands how the stock market works and has no grasp of the concept of buying and selling debt. It almost seems like there should be a whole separated class dedicated to this… Oh, wait, econ!

What really surprised me is that I actually have an interest in taking an economics class and learning about the stock market and how abstract (to me) ideas such as the stock market actually affect us in every day life. Until next semester, though, I will be stuck reading tons of articles on Wikipedia. So if anyone ever has one of those nights when they can’t sleep and feel like giving an in-depth explanation of the stock market… well you know where my room is.

Aliens and World Politics?

I really liked the discussion topic for last Friday. There are a lot of times in class where a topic, such as the state of plumbing in the Middle East, is brought up and I don’t feel like I know enough about it to contribute much to the discussion. Since the topic of aliens is almost completely hypothetical I felt like we were all on even ground. That being said, I didn’t feel like our discussion was particularly productive. We spent a lot of time fleshing out our own hypotheticals without relating them to world politics.

It seemed like the biggest disagreement was on whether or not the aliens would arrive with peaceful intentions. At first I was kind of frustrated that we were spending so much time on the topic, but then I thought that maybe this was the point that Professor Jackson was trying to make. Many times the intentions of a state or a leader are unclear and the smallest mistakes can become huge issues as a result. Ok, well I think that’s it for now. Oh, and kudos to Luke for being an amazing discussion leader!

The 'Green House'

Well, first of all, I don’t think that it would be possible for an alien to land on the White House lawn. The White House has extensive security measures, and surely a spaceship would set off anti-aircraft missiles and provoke sniper fire. The only way it would be possible for an alien species to land anything on the White House lawn would be if
a) The alien had anticipated and had in-depth knowledge of White House security measures and had taken preventative measures, such as disabling the defenses or becoming invisible, or
b) The aliens’ spacecraft and the aliens themselves were heavily armored and able to withstand the attack.
However, assuming that the aliens were indeed able to land on the White House lawn, they would probably be met with considerable apprehension. The first thing that they would have to do would be to assure us that they come with peaceful intent. Since the aliens had the technology to withstand our defenses, it is likely that, if they had desired to hurt us, it would have been possible, and easier for them to do so from space.
When the United States government had established that the aliens were friendly and had found a means of communications, the first move would likely be an exchange of technology. We would definitely want the aliens’ technology and knowledge of the universe, while we may have customs, knowledge, or technology that the aliens wouldn’t be familiar with. This would work because even though the United States would be getting more from the transaction, we still wouldn’t be able to bring our technology up to the level that would threaten the alien’s sense of security. This kind of positive-sum gain would be beneficial to both parties.
As time went on, it would be inevitable that the rest of the world would find out about our contact with extraterrestrials. Interaction with the aliens was governed by liberalism, with mutual gains benefiting both parties. However, in dealing with other countries, we would have more of a constructivist viewpoint. Since we clearly would have the upper hand in dealing with other countries, or identity rather than our sense of security would govern our actions. The historical role of the United States as a protector of everything good and just in this world (ok, maybe I shouldn’t take it that far…) would dictate our relations with other countries. Although we would send aid, it is doubtful that we would share our newfound technology.
Many other countries, especially our enemies, would feel threatened by our superior technology, but we would enjoy having the upper hand in the world and our return to the status of the world’s only hyper-power. This feeling of insecurity would force other countries to beef up their own security and take defensive measures. Most likely we would be able to contain any security threats, but in the event that we had half the world against us, we probably wouldn’t hesitate to take out a select few countries. This could result in a world war, ending the world as we know it.