Realism Flashcards
Define anarchy.
No centralised world government, no international executive or legislative.
Why do states wish to achieve power?
1) operating in an anarchic system means nothing can guide or rule them into dictating peace between countries.
2) All states possess some offensive military capabilities, with states able to inflict harm onto its neighbour. Defence needed as new ruler to help them.
3) states can never be certain about intentions of other states. They make use power to gain influence (revisionist) or they will be dormant (status quo states). Intentions of other states cannot be empirically verified and thus they must predict one another actions.
4) survival is key to maintain autonomy of their political order. Priority.
What is a self help world?
Due to living in constant anarchy, there is no executive to help countries who are being attacked. Thus, they live in a self help world and thus the only source of protection they have is from themselves. Being powerful means it would be rare for it to be attacked.
What is the security dilemma?
A theory by Waltz advocating that when one country tris to increase the security of their country, it decreases the security of other countries.
What do defensive realists aim for?
1) DRs believe that if states become too powerful, balancing will occur. Great powers will take initiatives to build up their militaries or form a balancing coalition in order to make an aspiring hegemon less secure and even destroy it (e.g. Nazi Germany). Hegemony are the reason for wars.
2) Defence is better than offence in an offensive/defensive balance as balance is heavily weighted with defenders. Hegemony are likely to end up battling a series of losing wars. Costs outweigh benefits.
3) Nationalism is not powerful enough to subdue the conquered. Whilst persuasive, it stresses self determination and thus actively encouraged occupied populations to revolt.
What do offensive realists believe in?
1) Aim is for hegemony, absolute world dominance.
2) Do not believe that defenders have an advantage as most countries that initiate the war win more often
3) Nationalism is not a weakness as some occupations have been easily governed like France under Nazi Germany. Also, not all states occupy a country once they win a war but split it into smaller states or disarm it to make it no longer a threat.
4) Whilst other states try to balance superpowers, these balances are unstable. Coalitions are unstable and do not work (Germany’s and Russia). Other states just pass the buck instead of joining a balancing coalition.
What do both offensive and defensive realists agree on?
Agree that nuclear weapons have little utility for offensive purposes, except when only one side possesses them. If both sides have a survivable retaliatory capability, neither side gains an advantage.
Why is bipolarity more peaceful than multipolarity?
1) Greater equalities between great powers in bipolarity. In multipolarity, material factors like demography, economy and military is uneven among numerous powers. With obvious power imbalances, the more powerful will target the weaker and war is inevitable. Also, in a multipolar system, some will gang up on others.
2) More chance of miscalculation in multipolarity with miscalculation starting wars. There is more clarity between two threats in bipolarity. These two states will focus on one another and will know each other’s capabilities.
3) Bipolarity is more balancing as each great power has no choice but to directly confront the other. No side can start a coalition as allies cannot balance the power. In multipolarity, countries will be tempted to pass the buck to other states in order to prevent conflict
Why might multipolarity instead be more peaceful than bipolarity?
1) Deterrence is easier as more states can join together in order to beat an aggressive force like Nazi Germany, in bipolarity, no one can help
(Could be proved wrong with NATO)
2) less hostility as amount of attention they pay to each power is less than in bipolarity and thus less overthinking
