The Balance Of Power And The Security Dilemma Essay

To understand changing patterns of global power is no easy feat, but several theories may give us an insight to the shift of power in our modern world, I wish to talk about these theories and how we can use them to better understand our past and present global power situations.

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

President of the United States Theodore Roosevelt, well known for his impressive diplomatic skills, was quoted as saying, “Speak softly and carry a big stick, and you will go far.” He wielded that big stick, or convincingly threatened to, with remarkable efficacy during the early twentieth century. The big stick that President Roosevelt carried with him was the superior muscle 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 nations ability to influence other states to achieve a desired outcome, manifests in numerous different forms within the state. Powerful states employ all the elements of power to include diplomacy, information, economic, cultural, and of course military to meet their national objectives. Although one might expect that militarily powerful states regularly triumph over weaker states in matters of war, superior military power does not guarantee a victory. This paper will show that states possessing weaker military power are capable of defeating militarily superior states that struggle to formulate sound military strategies for their armies, fail to generate the required military effectiveness on the battlefield, or cannot overcome the unpredictability of war.

The most prevalent reasons for states going to war are security, interest, standing, and revenge; of these, I posit that security is the most frequent. For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on warfare occurring since the onset of the 20th century, however many of the core arguments retain efficacy through the countless centuries of human warfare. States don’t trust one another; even the best relationships between states are mired in spycraft with, or in opposition to one another. To summarize Waltz, drive for security is something that all states want, and need, as long as there are multiple states and at least one of them is looking for power.

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

No nation is ever merely able to act at its people’s whim; a system of alliances and treaties has formed over the course of history, and breaking any of those agreements can mean anything from a small conflict to a large-scale war. One such

Mary Ellen O’Connell, a research professor at the Kroc, Institute, University of Notre Dame, and the Robert and Marion Short Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame, tells the congressional Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs “Lawful Use of Combat Drones” that the United States is failing more often than not to follow the most important single rule governing drones: restricting their use to the battlefield. O’Connell begins her argument with by describing combat drones as battlefield weapons capable of inflicting very serious damage and being unlawful for use outside combat zones. She states that police are the proper law enforcement agents, outside these zones, and are generally required to warn before using lethal force. By failing to restrict these remote weapons systems to the battlefield the U.S. is failing to respect a basic rule that contradicts the goal of winning hearts and minds to respect the rule of law. She breaks her speech into three sections: drones as a lawful battlefield weapon, the battlefield defined, and battlefield restraints.

Throughout history, conflict had always broken out between enemies when the appearance of deterrence — the material and spiritual likelihood of using greater military power successfully against an aggressive enemy — vanished. From Carthage to the Confederacy, weaker bellicose states could convince themselves of the impossible because their fantasies were not checked earlier by cold reality. A stronger appearance of power, and of the willingness to employ it, might have stopped more conflicts before they began.

Conflict, whether between states or within states, is costly. Not only is the event itself costly but it is inefficient because oftentimes the same outcome could’ve been reached without conflict. Yet, conflict still occurs in the international system. If both parties knew what the outcome of a particular conflict would be, they could reach an agreement beforehand to avoid conflict’s high cost. However, predicting the future is not yet possible and so to address this issue, James Fearon developed a bargaining model of war that aims to explain why states so often fail to reach peaceful bargains. Building upon this rationalist explanation for war, Benjamin Valentino discusses the use of mass killing as a rational tool for leaders. Both arguments fail to take into account the individual experience – an experience driven and shaped by emotion. The events in Kosovo in the

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

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

The Balance of Power is a fiercely debated topic within the realm of international relations. Its true definition has been impossible to pin down and how it manifests itself has been argued over by many academics, in addition to this the idea is divided between the schools of thought that it is a force for preserving peace or a force for tension and war. This essay will look to examine the balance of power using retrospective analysis of historical events, focusing on the lead up to and the outbreak of WWI and its conclusion and the Cold war. Through this it can be hoped to find a clearer definition of the balance of power, whether it is really a balance analogous to a set of scales and whether the balance of power is a way of preserving peace and stability or whether it is on the whole, better termed as the balance of war, creating only tension and instability.

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

as a result of the concept of the Balance Of Power, which dictates the actions