The Balance Of Power And The Cold War

Hard power and soft power are important factors when it comes to our nation and its role throughout the world. The differences between hard and soft power offer people a better insight when it comes to political power in our nation. Hard power deals with the aspect of changing the actions of others through things such as coercion; whereas, soft power deals with attraction and shaping what others want from a different perspective (Smith-Windsor, 52). These versions of power are crucial when it comes to the theory of international relations. A hypothesis that alliances are founded on calculations of national interest and do not withstand a conflict of those interests is christened “theory” in the current language of political science (Aron,

The Cold War was a significant time for the United States and the Soviet Union, while the rest of the world watched intently. Although no actual war took place, both of these powerful countries did their best to promote their political and ideological ideas while trying to gain some ground in the seemingly never ending arms race. This war was driven by both fear and the strive to become the strongest and most powerful country. During the time of the Cold War, the United States proved to be a strong influence over Canada. Given its location, it was obvious as to which side Canada was on. While Canada believed in the same ideologies as the US, this nation was still reluctant to fully emerge themselves into the hysteria that had been emerging in the US. However, even though Canada had just received world recognition for its contribution during the Second World War, this large yet acutely populated country had much still to prove. During this time, Canada just recently became a founding member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). But while Canada was making huge steps in their peacekeeping and military growth, there were still rumours of espionage circling the country.

Mearsheimer’s short article “The cause of great power war” explains the occurrence of major power wars. According to Mearsheimer, power gives rise to three kinds of systems which are known as Bipolarity, Unbalanced Multipolarity, and

President Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his extraordinary, worldly diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” During the early twentieth century, he brandished that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy in support of his country’s political objectives. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him as a diplomat and Commander in Chief was the superior power of the United States military. “Historically, power has been measured by such criteria as population size and territory, natural resources, economic strength, military force, and social stability. Hard power enables countries to wield carrots and sticks to get what they want.”1 Power, a nation’s ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms or elements within a state. Powerful states strive to employ all the elements of power, including diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and most importantly military to further their national objectives. Although a reasonable person might expect that a militarily powerful state routinely triumphs over the weaker state in matters of war, superior military power only guarantees a victory on paper, not in any real war. This paper will show that when one considers a state’s relative military power, weaker states are capable of defeating more powerful states that struggle to formulate

The Cold War was an ideologically defensive battle that saw the invisible hand of the American capitalist structure in a fight against the state fist of a Soviet communist regime. The United States and the Soviet Union were the two superpowers of the post-World War II era: each had their own ideological mission (capitalist democracy versus communism), its network of alliances and third world clients, and its deadly arsenal of nuclear weapons. Europe was divided, with massive military forces of the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies on one side and massive forces of the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies on the other. Germany itself was split, divided with three-quarters of the country – and three-quarters of the capital city of Berlin – occupied by the United States, Britain, and France. The remainder, surrounding West Berlin, was occupied by the Soviet Union. In 1961, East Germany built the Berlin Wall separating East from West Berlin. It symbolized the division of Europe by what Winston Churchill had aptly called the “iron curtain.” Although Europe saw this ideologically divisive curtain firsthand, the relations of the United States and the Soviet Union would come to realize the ultimate ostentatious display of Cold War capabilities in the Caribbean island nation of Cuba.

The Cold War was the state of military and political tension between Western countries, especially the United States, its NATO allies, and the communist nations, particularly the Soviet Union and other satellite states. The war began after World War II had got to an end.

In his 1988 Republican National Convention acceptance speech former U.S. President George H.W. Bush proclaimed that, “Weakness and ambivalence lead to war.”. For better or worse a state's ability to influence world politics is primarily based on much power they have. In purely academic terms, power is the ability of Actor A to get Actor B to do something that B would otherwise not do; the ability to get the other side to make concessions and to avoid having to make concessions oneself (Frieden P. A-6). Power is usually represented by the capability of a state to preserve or tip the balance of power towards their own national interests. Balance of power refers to a situation in which the military capabilities of two states or groups of

A popular military aphorism stated by Earnest Hemmingway was, “Once we have a war there is only one thing to do. It must be won. For defeat brings worse things than any that can ever happen in war.” With the ongoing troubles of the Cold War and rising tension along the 38th Parallel that split the once nation of Korea in two, this statement will become imminent. Through basic principles of leadership exhibited by General Douglass MacArthur to take a chance at a dynamic or what some may lean to call unorthodox strategic planning, history was forever changed. A battle against Communism, with definitely some manipulated agendas became the focus in 1950 which sparked the Korean War.

Throughout the semester Joseph Nye’s signature concepts of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ power have been analyzed amongst the backdrop of U.S. foreign relations. ‘Hard power’ is the use of “coercion i.e. military and economic means to influence the behavior of other political bodies” (Hudson). This contrasts to ‘Soft power’ which is the use of “attraction to produce desired foreign policy results [by focusing] on three key resources: culture, political values, and foreign policies” (Hudson). Through the wielding and usage of the tools of ‘soft power’ ideas about U.S. values and culture have been able to attract partners and support to Washington without the use of force and/or threat of further war and atrocity. Due to this fact it appears ‘soft power’ is more integral to influencing foreign relations, especially when considering the effects of actions such as President Woodrow Wilson’s establishment of a Committee on Public Information, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms Speech, and President Harry Truman’s support for the Marshall Plan.

The balance of power theory is viewed as critical policy in the handling of international relations. To fully comprehend how the balance

To comprehend the significance of Balance of Power, we ought to make the inquiry of what we see by `power’. Although it’s hard to characterize or quota it, power is the capacity to “do something or act in a particular way” or even Nye (2009:65) contends “the ability to achieve one’s purposes or goals.” At the end of the day, the possibility to impact other individuals to do what you need them to do. As several academics would approve that balance of power can scarcely have an accurate meaning. In the nineteenth-century, British open-minded Richard Codden gave a convincing definition which expresses that balance of power is “a chimera – an undescribed, indescribable, incomprehensible nothing”. Although, this essay will attempt to comprehend, investigate and discriminatingly examine the way of this idea utilizing two examples from the late 19th and 20th century, i.e. the Cold War and the pre-WWI conditions.

Therefore interactions may be defined in terms of power, and this allows for the analytical study of foreign policy, regardless of the circumstances. Realism as Realpolitik involves the use of power. Power is the ability to influence others into doing what they otherwise would not. In Realism, the important aspects of power looked at are power resources and power capabilities. Power resources are drawn over a long-term period and can be seen as potential power. These may include: population, geography and territory. Power capabilities are used for more immediate purposes, and they may include: military force, economic strength and diplomatic skill. The concept of the ‘Balance of Power’ is used to understand the process of Realpolitik. It is the relation of power between states. With the background of the Nigeria/Biafra civil war and the tool of analysis in place, this essay will now attend to explaining why Realism can be used as an analytical tool in discussing the conflict between Nigeria and Biafra, how the central concept of

International change takes place when great powers rise and fall and followed by the shift in the balance of power (Jackson and Sorensen, 2003).

In this text, Keohane and Nye try to shape and define a new concept of power applied on international relations based on the notion of interdependence, which is a concept broadly used and misunderstood in the discipline. Interdependence is getting more and more important in defining international affairs, inter-state relationships and worldwide behaviors; for a good understanding of the issue, we should now define the cornerstone, the backbone of the whole topic. Interdependence means, in Keohane and Nye's words, the situation of “mutual dependence [...] characterized by reciprocal effects among countries or among actors in different countries”. Although it is certain

Starting back in history I want to draw attention to the Melian dialogue that we discussed in the very beginning of class. The Melian dialogue is a great example of how international relations from back in history, specifically 416 BC, is very similar to today’s international relations. In the dialogue the Athenians wanted to take over the island of Milos (hence the Melians) though the Melians remained neutral throughout the war the Athenians were fighting. The Melians still wanted to remain neutral but the Athenians thought it would make them look weak in the eyes of other nations. Many of the ideas presented in this text are similar to many current debates today and it reflects on how a nation can have a need for power and what nations will do to achieve that power.