It is important to first define realism the context of the argument, as the theory that seeks to explain or account for conflict. Schroeder’s assertion that realism is a good theory for explaining war, but not peace, can certainly be applied in the context of this question. John Mearsheimer’s “offensive realism” describes an international system that offers Great Powers little choice other than to seek the subversion of other powers (even those which pose no direct threat) “if they want to maximise their own odds of survival”. He argues that the construction of the international system forces powers to act offensively towards other states from a position of fear. With that said, traditional realists, such as Cold War American policy advisor
It raises the question of ‘What causes war?’ In Ehrenreich’s writing “The Ecstasy of War” she answers that war is too complex to say it is based on a single act. Moreover, she claims that instinct is a minor factor and should be disregarded (Ehrenreich 426-431). Although her principles, some may think instinct should be considered as factor that derives war. Therefore this paper will rebut on the oversimplification of such argument and reason the importance of instinct in war. War has many sides, and our view towards war can change according to the face we look at.
James Madison stated that war is detrimental to the existence of freedom in society. His claims in “Political Observations” exemplify his respect for the influence of public thought. If all sides of an issue are shown to the public the truth eventually will come out. Some of the reasons why he classified war as the most dreaded enemy to public liberty include war is the guardian of armies, debts, and taxes, war disrupts the balance of the Executive and Legislative branches, and countries would have difficulty maintaining freedom with constant warfare. Madison alleged that war was the keeper of armies, debts, and taxes.
The thought of having peace is almost always thought of as a good thing. Sometimes, however, peace is not always such a good thing and can lead to even worse situations than before. One reason why peace isn’t always good and can lead to war is because of punishments put onto other countries for their previous actions. Another reason why peace can lead to war is because alliances will always be thought of in peace treaties. The last reason why peace can lead to war is because some governments don’t really get much of a say in peace talks.
Machiavelli advises if you must harm people; harm them so severely they will not be able to take revenge on you. This is very different from how the United States handled Afghanistan and Iraq; The War in Afghanistan was slow moving. It was believed by Machiavelli, you should act humanely only when it will benefit, not because it is ethical. The United States aided in the restructuring
The Realist Prescriptions of Carr & Waltz The international system of world politics is constantly filled with political conflict, war, and instances in which cooperation between states seems to be a viable option. This constant cycle between war and peace is representative of the ever-changing environment of international structure. Political philosophers and theorists attempt to understand this cycle by producing theories like that of liberalism, constructionism, and realism in order to better understand and compartmentalize the ever changing environment in order to better understand and deal with the issues that arise between states in the international structure. These theories are influenced by the realities in which these theorists
The magnitude of such crisis could lead to mass dislocation, violation of human rights and famine, and pose a potential international crisis for states. Thus, ethnic civil war has become a new security issue in international relations. Neorealism can explain ethnic civil war but not accurately nor sufficiently. The perception of an emerging anarchy in multi-ethnic communities creates a security dilemma where the different ethnic groups began to self-help. This security dilemma is made worse as offence-defence is indistinguishable – guns and knives as self-defence or attacking weapons, and groups perceive the offensive to have an advantage since they live in coexistence with other ethnic groups who might threaten the survival of their own ethnic group hence they have an incentive to strike
Stine Bekkos 14753469 Is the concept of ‘total war’ useful for understanding the history of the two world wars? ‘Total War’ for historians can seem to be an endless minefield where one is destined to step wrong sooner or later. With the extensive diverse research on the topic and the numerous definitions of ‘total war’, it can be challenging to use the concept of ‘total war’ for understanding the history of the two world wars, as it can and already has be interpreted in diverse ideas. ‘What, after all, is the term total war meant to describe: a specific period, particular wars or only certain aspects of such wars? Some precision would clearly be welcomed.’ This essay will attempting to argue that the concept of ‘total war’ can be used to
Such change to the environment is seen in terms of co-evolution with all other systems rather than as adaptation to a separate environment (Chan, 2001:1) Doddler & Date (2001:7) identified three categories of complexity: static complexity, Dynamic complexity and Informational Complexity. Static complexity relates to the structural aspects of a system’s complexity. It includes elements such as hierarchy, connectivity, variety and levels or strength of interactions. This type of complexity is context dependent. Dynamic complexity entails complexity ideas related to the behavior, processes of cause and effect, feedback, fluctuations and stability, cycles and time scales, evolving behavior.
Unlike the United States where we have two borders that are relatively easy to monitor, differing security practices from country to country around both eastern and western Europe mean that the movement of potential security threats are much more difficult to trace. In short, more localized regions are more transparent when it comes to examining security threats, and thus are subject to fewer consequences. Larger regions with many borders rely more on the security practices of all nations nearby which poses a greater threat. On the other hand, the brotherhood offered by international alliances such as the EU has created a situation where countries are more likely to cooperate
Between the era of Mahan Beveridge, Schurz, and Bryan, there have been many outlooks and opinions about whether or not imperialism is good or bad; some similar, some different. One is the speech by Obama being similar to Bryan’s opinions in relations to them both believing that imperialism is pointless, and overall not a good decision since there can be other ways to solve the problems they may have for imperializing in the first place. They both saw the same effects that can come out of imperializing; the consequence being an unnecessary war that can be avoided in the first place. Webb’s is also similar to both Bryan and Obama’s opinion because he also believes that it is an unnecessary thing to do in order for us to get what we want. They
The whole point of this “cold war” was to maintain a peace among uneasy times, which did not work. The “A” bomb is the most powerful and destructive nuclear weapon of today. It would not have been made if it were not for the cold war. The bombing of Hiroshima ended the war between the United States and Japan. The long fall of communism was a necessity to the nature of history and peace.
Such as the following. After John Fitzgerald Kennedy was out of office in between elections, he was still focused on the economic and political issues and conflicts in the US. While JFK was still alive, he remodeled America’s politics. Albeit his inexperience before entering office is thought process and decision making was reasonable and becoming of a rookie. There was the reasoning behind him wanting to end the war, however is was not the right way to end the war and there were many refutations to the decision.
Rose argues that these interventions have been the work of a single hegemonic power (US), rather than that of international institutions, which in realist’s eyes, are simply the projection of the strongest state’s power. These interventions have been costly and risky, but Rose believes the costs were worth it saying: “the places we have gone and stayed have been the ones that have tended to do better” (Rose, 2011). Here, Rose speaks about South vs. North Korea and East vs. West Germany along with a handful of examples in which the presence of the United States has drastically improved the situation of one state while its absence has led to the disempowerment of the other. In Iraq, a tyrannical leader was removed and eventually, a system that worked better than the previous one was put in place through actions taken by the United States all in an effort to secure its position and its interests demonstrating the idea that a hegemon can help stabilize the system and supporting the idea that Rose is more aligned with realist thinking than
Although if they remained neutral, Sparta might as well stay neutral, but without communication this can lead into an inaccurate assumption, and Sparta can attack, and if Sparta attacks while Athens are on the neutral side they will end up on the loosing side. The two states could’ve cooperated more if they had a more open communication towards each other during that time, if they both provided a better communication they could’ve both tell their true intentions, and war may have been averted. However usually states tend to assume that other states desire to control all of the land, even if they attempted to communicate and cooperate, could they trust on each other? Sparta knew that the Athens were aggressive especially under the control of Pericles, even though they wanted the balance of power, this aggression towards Sparta lead them to attack