Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument put …show more content…
This fact undoubtedly is a result of the uncertainty which still remains between states regardless of the numerous progressive moves in a liberal direction for the international community such as the establishment of the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO). In spite of this liberal progression the traditional realist approach still and perhaps will for the foreseeable future remain at the crux of military security regardless of whatever shortcomings. An easy explanation for this is that the very concept of military security is based on realist thought, realist vision, the very instinct to defend, protect and attack if necessary are the fundamentals of military security but also of realism. The world continues to be a dangerous and ruthless place as any traditional realist would agree. The inherent dark side of humanity remains giving optimum reason as to why the strengths of the traditional realist approach to military security outweigh the weaknesses. As the realist school of thought suggested, each state has one agenda, to survive and will therefore go through any means necessary to ensure this. However there will always be others who believe there is more to human nature and more to state agenda than realism allows for. In conclusion, realism has dominated the study of security significantly and in turn has dominated the concept of military security. Realism in relation to military security will continue to dominate as its fundamentals encompass what military security is all about. It may have flaws and weaknesses, it may be deemed regressive in some aspects by critics but it reflects accurately in essence what military security is and what it aims to achieve. The capability to defend
Can an antiquated lens provide an adequate examination and understanding of modern warfare? The theories of Carl von Clausewitz retain remarkable contemporary merit and relevance in explaining the critical elements affecting warfare in the modern era. Carl von Clausewitz’s theories of war endeavor to be comprehendible, comprehensive, and strategic. Clausewitz contends that the conduct of war itself is without doubt very difficult. But the difficulty is not that erudition and great genius are necessary to understand the basic principles of warfare.1 Clausewitz 's 1812 essay, the Principles of War, offers military commanders, with little campaign experience, a comprehendible, comprehensive, and strategic model for attaining victory in battle.
Clear concise policy guidelines on the use of military force need to formulated. Our national interests will clash with the national interests of other countries or groups; we must be committed to following through with defending our policies, or we further loose our national
For Mearsheimer, this is the very basis of realistic thinking and in turn equates international order to anarchy. 2. Great powers maintain and continue to acquire militaristic capabilities in order to eradicate the idea of weakness and establish sovereignty over lesser powers. 3. A country can never be sure of another country’s motive hence each party is left
The art of fear is essential in nuclear deterrence. Using the film Dr. Strangelove (Stanley Kubrick, 1964) I will argue that nuclear deterrence is hard to achieve when communication of nuclear capabilities is not well established amongst states. In this paper, I will use the film Dr. Strangelove (1964) to argue how theories such as deterrence theory, realist theory, security dilemma, preventative war, pre-emptive war as well as relative gains and zero sum game led to a failure to achieve nuclear deterrence between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. To make my argument on how more nuclear weapons may hinder deterrence, this essay will proceed as follows; I will firstly discuss the how nuclear deterrence and mutually
Safety and security has gone back to members we used to call the “watchman” who were some of the first figures we started to develop as law enforcement figures to keep the society safe (Schmalleger 6). This is so important in today 's world as it tries to sure up fairness for life, land, and the pursuit of happiness, as it states in the United States’ Declaration of independence. This is such an important concept to have in our society as the US became somewhat of a model for the rest of the world after our declaration. This need for safety and security also stretches into the reasons for why we have our military. For obvious reason as keeping our country safe to the reasons of us still interacting in other countries to allow them and their people work towards having a fair system of which they can feel safe and secure.
Looking back over the development of the Security Studies field, there can be no doubt that the realist tradition has exercised enormous influence. Even the harshest of critics can acknowledge that with their focus on power, fear, and anarchy, realist theories have provided centrally important explanations for conflict and war (Williams, 2013). One interpretation of realism that is unbroken amongst most commentators of the theory is that realists are individuals that believe the State is the principle actor in international politics and that they are very concerned with the balance of power (Marsalis, 2013). They argue that all the State’s actions and choices are a reflection of the collective will of the people, which is also an argument
SUBJECT: Information Paper 1. Purpose. To summarize the important parts of the Army White Paper, The Profession of Arms, dated 08DEC10, for the Battalion Commander of 1-22 Combined Arms Battalion (CAB). 2. Facts.
Realist Perspective of the War: According to realists, the International Political system is anarchical. There is no sovereign entity ruling above the sovereign states in the world. Whilst this anarchy needs not to be chaotic, for various member states of the international
It is about being able to defend oneself and perhaps others if a situation presents
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
Idealism and Realism are two strongly opposed views of foreign policy. At the core of this opposition is the issue of power and security in politics. 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.
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. Conflicts and wars, Similarities and differences between Realism and Liberalism: Both Liberalism and Realism believes that there is no world government that can prevent countries to go to war on one another. For both theories military power is important and both Realism and Liberalism can understand that countries can use military power to get what they need or want. Also, both theories are conscious that without military
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK It involves using theories to explain the existing problem in various situations. Realism theory and the dependency theory will be used to explain the existing conflict between Israel and Palestine. It will also be able to justify the use of force by the Israeli government when dealing with Palestinian Hamas. Realism theory in the Israeli and Palestine conflict Realism theory explains how states are selfish, struggle to gain power and succeed in acquiring its national interests in the international system. Realists identify world politics as a trans-historical and trans-geographical struggle for power, and that in this context Thucydides’ dictum that, “the strong do what they have the power to do and the weak accept what they have to accept” (where strength and weakness are calculated by military capabilities) is the stark and universal truth (Schmidt, 2007; Thucydides, 1972, p. 402).
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
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. Idealists, however, expand on what constitutes an actor to include both the state and people. Not only do the principles of Idealism assert that the state and people should be considered actors, in fact, both they must be viewed as actors.