Answer:
International organizations are likely to be ineffective in addressing a nuclear crisis in South Asia, primarily because their deliberations take too long. However, a forum like the United Nations will still be required for the conduct of critical multilateral negotiations, whether or not the organization itself gets involved in intervention.
For the foreseeable future, "managed tension" will remain the norm between India and Pakistan.
Historic ties shape the perceptions and actions of belligerents as well as those responding to a crisis. Although this may sound like a blinding flash of the obvious, the extent to which historic ties impacted the game was revealing.
Conventional force confidence-building measures between India and Pakistan need to be complemented by nuclear CBMs.
Nuclear weapons provide states with enhanced negotiating leverage. Nuclear weapons provide countries with a wild card that they would not otherwise possess.
Conflicting views concerning the importance of nuclear weapons will continue. India, in particular, sees possession of nuclear weapons as the key to great power status.
Post-nuclear exchange options are extremely limited.
Explanation:
Natural characteristics of leadership
According to Plato, the leader should be capable of making
use of manipulation and force in order to subdue the captain and take command
of the ship. He should be able to win the support of people through natural
qualities of leadership.
In practice, aristocracy often leads to hereditary government, after which the hereditary monarch appoints officers as they see fit. In modern times, aristocracy was usually seen as rule by a privileged group, the aristocratic class, and has since been contrasted with democracy.
Haiti, Mexico, Argentina, and Colombia all gained their independence in the early 1800’s. (there are more like Venezuela, Panama, etc.)
