Nathan Ye, Knowledgable on things regarding militaries of the world

Written Dec 6, 2015

While I have not read Kenneth waltz's book, I do have a good understanding on his theory of
neorealism. I have also read through most of Clauswitz's On War.

So here goes

Waltz claims that the world of international relations is always in perpetual anarchy, this
means that in the world stage here is no central authority which means that all countries
have the same "rights" and can act however they like. He then states that most countries do
things for there own betterment and not the betterment of other countries, that countries
are inherently selfish. He also says that countries all distrust each other and that they ally
not because of morality but because of how powerful/rich they are. Countries go to war with
their own benefits in mind not that of other countries.

Clauswitz says that war is always backed by a political goal, that the government should
always set a goal for the military which they would then achieve by their own means.
Clauswitz believes that the political goal can be anything, even if it's based on morality. He
believes countries can go to war based purely on morals (for example if a neighbouring
country was doing some hideous war crime.) But he states that this is usually a bad idea and
war should be fought for both a economic and moral reason.

Waltz belief is that nuclear weapons have created a

period of peaceful relations between nations. Is he
right or is he vastly understating the risks?
Answer
Request
Follow2
Comment
Share
Downvote

2 Answers

Troy Fisher-Stewart, MA International Relations, University of Melbourne (2018)

Written Mon
You always have to beware of post hoc ergo proctor hoc on this one.

Since we are out of the Cold War, from an epistemological and empirical point of view, I
agree with the theory (MAD doctrine).
The major powers haven't been to war against each other since nuclear weapons were in
play. In saying that, we can't run a do-over experiment taking nuclear weapons out of the
equation.
25 Views Answer requested by Michael Obafemi
Upvote Downvote
Share

RecommendedAll

Andrew Piereder, Eclectic knowledge and skill set

Written Mon
I guess peace is a relative term. It has prevented direct confrontation between the great
powers, but has fostered an incessant cacophony of proxy wars, the latest of which is Syria.

Not perfect, but one must concede the improvement.

What is less clear is how nuclear proliferation is going to factor into the geopolitical
situation. What do you do with a nuclear North Korea, Pakistan and Iran?

Perhaps nothing at all, a price to pay, like proxy wars between the great powers, but it could
also be very, very bad.

THOMAS HOBBES ( LEVIATHEN)

Hobbes' View of Human Nature and his Vision of Government

In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and
describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.

Hobbes believed that human beings naturally desire the power to live well and that
they will never be satisfied with the power they have without acquiring more
power. After this, he believes, there usually succeeds a new desire such as fame and
glory, ease and sensual pleasure or admiration from others. He also believed that all
people are created equally. That everyone is equally capable of killing each other
because although one man may be stronger than another, the weaker may be
compensated for by his intellect or some other individual aspect. Hobbes believed that
the nature of humanity leads people to seek power. He said that when two or more
people want the same thing, they become enemies and attempt to destroy each
other. He called this time when men oppose each other war. He said that there were
three basic causes for war, competition, distrust and glory. In each of these cases,
men use violence to invade their enemies territory either for their personal gain, their
safety or for glory. He said that without a common power to unite the people, they
would be in a war of every man against every man as long as the will to fight is
known. He believed that this state of war was the natural state of human beings and
that harmony among human beings is artificial because it is based on an agreement. If
a group of people had something in common such as a common interest or a common
goal, they would not be at war and united they would be more powerful against those
who would seek to destroy them. One thing he noted that was consistent in all men
was their interest in self-preservation.

Hobbes view of human nature lead him to develop his vision of an ideal
government. He believed that a common power was required to keep men
united. This power would work to maintain the artificial harmony among the people
as well as protect them from foreign enemies. This power would either be one man or
an assembly appointed by the people. The people would make an agreement among
themselves to all submit to this ruler. The people would submit their wills to the will
of their ruler who would in turn assure their self-preservation. Thus the ruler would
have absolute control over his domain. Hobbes referred to this kind of ruler as a
Sovereign and his people as subjects.

Partner sites: and Free Essays and Term Papers