Realist Approach To Military Security

When George Washington presented his farewell address, he urged our fledgling democracy, to seek avoidance of foreign entanglements. However, as the world modernized, and our national interests spread, the possibility of not becoming involved in foreign entanglements became impossible. The arenas of open warfare and murky hostile acts have become separated by a vast gray line. Even today, choosing when and how to use US military force remain in question. The concept of national isolationism failed to prevent our involvement in World War I. Global trade has interconnected the US to regions of the globe as never before. Throughout the world, situations occur that the United States government has to decide if it is in our national interest to intervene with military force.

When I was younger, the first few years of history class tended to gloss over most of history, leaving only a paragraph or two for each of the big players: Egyptians, Romans, Greeks, etc. What did I expect, we can’t teach kids all of history, we need to shrink every period down to small digestible bites. Here’s the question though: What will America’s paragraph read like?

Philosopher John Harris, proposed the experiment of the survival lottery. The survival lottery basically says that if two people (Y and Z) are facing death and could be saved by killing one other person (A) and using their organs for transplant, then we should go ahead and kill A to save the lives of the ones who need the organ transplants. The argument he is making is based strictly on the grounds that the number of lives saved would greatly outway the number of lives that were taken from individuals. Some basic assumptions would need to be made as well. First off, each life would have to be assumed to be of equal value, two lives saved are more valuable than the killing of a single life, the two lives would have to be cured and of a better

The essence of John J. Mearsheimer’s “Anarchy and the Struggle for Power” relies on the argument that great powers have been and will continue to be in a perpetual struggle for dominance. Mearsheimer conveys that the need hegemony is not only omnipresent but also inescapable. His rationale is delineated through five assumptions:

This war is important because it puts forward a perfect example of Realism being practiced in real life. The war shows us the need of an International Peacekeeping Organization but also warns us that they might not always be useful and this is when the use of ‘Power’ comes in which is the essence of Realism. In this case the ‘Power’ we are referring to is the United States which intervened in this war to help Kuwait defeat Iraq.

There are many measures we must take and sacrifices we must make to ensure the safety and comfort within our nation, however, sometimes we must look at the precautions we are taking and wonder whether or not our methods are effective, reasonable, or even ethical. Although we need to protect our country, war and a strong military presence create more violence, communication barriers, and havoc than necessary or ideal.

Realism or political realism prioritizes national interests and security concerns in addition to moral ideology and social reconstruction. The term is often associated with political power. The term is often associated with political power. Realism believes that the state is the main actor of the most important in determining the direction of a country. This means there is no term mentioned as an International Organization but merely the State. Realism also believes the State is deciding on the future of the people. In connection with it, the state is certainly confident that whatever actions are correct and appropriate, even if it is done by means

The current work is meant to explain the differences and similarities between the most dominant theories in international relations, Realism and Liberalism, both theories have some similarities and differences but much more important and interesting is to discuss and explain what differs and makes similar both theories.

The use of military force (depending on the situation) is reasonable, but it can also be very unreasonable. The situation at hand is the civil war in Syria and the production and use of chemical weapons. I think it would be reasonable if we attacked only if we were to be attacked but we could invade as well to prevent any further harm if necessary. The only problem with acting is that we might start a war from which would start an increase in taxes as well as casualties in the war at hand.

What if people had the right to carry concealed guns everywhere, the many hours of training received and money spent on the right to be able to carry a concealed gun? Think about all the mass shootings that have occurred on in the world today and if people had the right to carry their concealed gun everywhere. The law prohibits people from carry concealed guns everywhere and it is not right, especially if people are licensed and trained to carry. People can go on and on about the reasons why concealed guns should not be carried everywhere and actually have some valid points. Nevertheless, carrying a concealed gun should not be prohibited from certain places especially with everything going on in society today.

Realism establishes a separation between politics and ethics in order to understand and comprehend international events. Realists don’t oppose morality to politics, nor power to law, but rather oppose the utopian peaceful society to the nature of society. Realists are attuned to the idea that the international system is anarchic and that serious threats emerge all the time, requiring states to secure resources for survival. This involves periodic use of force; security represents the unique and main goal of foreign policy.

Classical realism and structural realism are both theories of International Relations, therefore huge differences are noticed in between those two. The main difference lies in the motivation to power, which is seen differently by both theories. Classical realism is concentrated in the desire of power- influence, control and dominance as basic to human nature. Whereas, structural realism is focused on the international system anarchic structure and how the great powers behave. Classical realists believe that power is related to human nature, thus their analysis of individuals and states is similar. It believes that all individuals are born with an increasing desire to own power hardwired inside them. In these circumstances dominant states should do direct high power over their rivals. In the other hand, structural realism does not define the quest for power, instead it is focused on the structure of the international

Following to the Cold War, the West has in recent times fought its wars in a progressively more controlled manner contrary to a previous historical trend towards increased totality in war. Its recent behaviour displays elements strongly reminiscent of primitive warfare. The use of massive firepower has been minimal or absent, nor any attempt to undertake strategies of annihilation. The approach to warfare in recent times has taken into consideration avoidance of casualties, both friendly and enemy. Hostilities to a large extent have been justified through careful appeals to abstract concepts such as humanitarianism, as well as the tangible indicators of those concepts, such as international law. Formalised elements, especially those related to justification, such as the pursuing of a United Nations mandate prior to any operation, have become stronger.

Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism, two of the most influential contemporary approaches to international relations, although similar in some respects, differ multitudinously. Thus, this essay will argue it is inaccurate to claim that Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism have far more similarities than differences. On the contrary, it will contend that there are, in an actual fact, more of the latter than there are of the former on, for example, the nature and consequences of anarchy, the achievement of international cooperation, and the role of international institutions. Moreover, it will be structured in such a way so as to corroborate this line of argument. In practice, that is to say, this essay will first and foremost explain what is meant by Neo-Realism and Neo-Liberalism. It will then hone in on a similarity of crucial importance, namely that both are in agreement that the international system is structured anarchically. The rationale behind this is twofold: firstly, anarchy lays the foundations upon which both theories are built and, secondly, it is from this similarity that fundamental points of contention come to light. For example, although there is consensus that the international system is structured anarchically, neo-realists and neoliberals hold differing views on the nature of anarchy: the former argues that anarchy is all-encompassing whereas the latter contends that

The international relations schools of thought known as Realism and Idealism identify specific and similar characteristics of actors in the conceptual development of their theories. While many of these characteristics can be generalized as being synonymous with the two theories, both theories make a separate distinction in what specifically constitutes an actor. In Realism, the term “actor” refers directly and solely to the state: a combination of government, leaders, decision-makers, etc, that act as a unitary entity to promote the interests of the state.