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
Therefore, in order to fully understand how morale and psychological variances effect the Trinity, military historians should examine battles with profound psychological ramifications. A comparative analysis of the World War Two battle of Stalingrad and the Vietnam War battle for Huế City are excellent examples of attritional warfare with extremely different outcomes but a multitude of similarities. A Trinity analysis of Stalingrad and Huế City offer military historians with profound examples depicting how psychological variables influence the outcome of
Just America or Just in War? Throughout the decades, history has recorded all the wars in which the United States has participated in. Some may consider that the United States’ participation in foreign affairs may have been cruel, or unnecessary; while in other cases, others find it essential for the United States to fight for the common good. Therefore, philosophers—in the pursuit of justice—have designed methods that dictate how a nation can justly engage into a war, one of this methods being the Just War theory. The Just War theory, invented by Saint Augustine around the 4th century, allows to determine when to initiate a war and the level of violence that is justified (Maiese, 2003).
Perhaps is it because it is not the right question to ask and instead we should question the means by which peace can be sought. The author gives three images which attempt to explain the causes of war. The first image talks about the Human Behaviour, as a primary motif of war, the second theory regards the Internal Structure of States and finally the third theory talks proposes the idea of a International System ruled by Anarchy. My contemporary example will be based on the events that took place and are still taking place in Syria, starting with the Arab Spring in 2010. In order to assess the link between the three stages or theories and my contemporary example it is important to first clearly understand and define the characteristics of Walt’s different arguments.
This essay is supposed to illustrate that, neverthe-less, the literature shows no consensus on factors contributed to Napoleon’s victory at Austerlitz, there were factors attributed more than others – maintenance of morale of the Grande Armée and elements of surprise. Firstly, ‘surprise’ is ‘built on speed, secrecy and deception and if successful, achieves results disproportionate to the effort expended’ (NATO, 2010 pp. 1-8). ‘Maintenance of morale’ is described as ‘a positive state of mind derived from in-spired political and military leadership, a shared sense of purpose and
To what factors do you attribute Napoleon’s victory at Austerlitz? Napoleon has said that ‘the whole art of war consist in a well-reasoned and ex-tremely circumspect defensive, followed by rapid and audacious [counter] attack’ (Bowden, 1997, p. 321). Given quotation is appropriate to describe the general idea that Napoleon applied successfully in the battle of Austerlitz resulting outstanding victory. Napoleon created a delusion of the weak French force witch appeared easy to defeat. Consequently, the Third Coalition rushed to battle without realizing that they are drawn to battle under conditions created and shaped by Napoleon.
General Bernard Montgomery taught soldiers to be competent in warfare. It could be said that this general's career and job pointed out the limitations that other leaders rely on when being in command, but Montgomery did not care. Montgomery was in a conventional leadership role, but took an unconventional discourse and transformed the military manual by processing the old ways of planning and calculations and rewriting them for the
Waltz addresses this scenario by suggesting that education can be a remedy for war (Waltz, 21). Although Waltz suggests that this image is an explanation of war he states that not just one image alone can explain the cause of war and peace. Waltz argues, “too much concern with the “primary” cause of conflict leads on away from a realistic analysis of world politics,” (Waltz, 33). Human nature alone cannot explain why wars occur and therefore it is unrealistic to resume that woe can understand the cause of war by understanding human
Great powers are primed for offense. They will defend balance of power when looming change favors another state but will undermine the balance when direction of change is in its favor. Specifically in World War I, the struggle for power was exacerbated by the three major assumptions of the security dilemma: Absence of central authority (anarchy), States all have offensive military capability, and states can never be certain about other states’ intentions. The result is fear, self-help, and power maximization, and so, the security dilemma ensued and ultimately led to the outbreak of World War I. Thus, the most persuasive theoretical explanation of the outbreak of World War I is the cascading security
The prudence can only be reasonable in a system of balance of power because this balance should be maintained by great powers. So, when it comes to the question of morality and prudence, Waltz is ambiguous. On the one side, he argues that this result in the clash of order and survival. On the other, it leads to the discussion about what people are willing to and should fight for. The moral element was always there but with entering the nuclear era it becomes more