After Waltz opened the door in the structural theory, other neorealists created theories to build on top of Waltz’s foundation. One in particular, John Mearsheimer, agreed with almost everything that Waltz said, except for his stance on security. In Waltz’s neorealism theory, he spoke about the security dilemma, and how that shapes a states foreign policy, and how they, in turn acts towards others. Mearsheimer offers the offensive realism theory, which is the opposite to the defensive theory that Waltz came up with. Although both theories have more in common with each other than they do different, it shows how one tweak can change an entire idea, and make you question a states existence. I believe that the defensive realism theory is more rational
…show more content…
If taking the Cold War for example, both the United States and USSR were in an arms race, but that was insurance in case the other were to take an offensive approach. Both states knew the consequences of what war would do to them, so they acted accordingly to survive. Another example as to why defensive is better than offensive, is because offensive rarely works in the modern world. In Nazi Germany, Hitler was fairly close to a European takeover, but the countries that he aligned himself with messed him up, by moving too fast, before he was able to take down Britain and Russia. Once Hitler would have gotten through the majority of Europe, the United States would have been at the top of his list to invade. But since the US joined the war earlier than expected, it gave Germany more than it could …show more content…
Russia has effectively been pushed in a corner, by its own leadership, and is now desperate to secure a future, and I believe that the other sovereign states sees that that is the case, and appeasing Russia-for now. If Russia decided to militarily occupy other nations, then a war may be in our future, but it would not turn out in favor for the Russians, who is already close to demise. Hitler was just power hungry, and used Germany as his vessel to get as much as possible. Germany’s neighboring countries underestimated how powerful they would get in such a short time, so when they appeased them, Germany took it as a pass to continue to do as it pleased. Once Germany took to invade other nations, then war became
If taking the Cold War for example, both the United States and USSR were in an arms race, but that was insurance in case the other were to take an offensive approach. Both states knew the consequences of what war would do to them, so they acted accordingly to survive. Another example as to why defensive is better than offensive, is because offensive rarely works in the modern world. In Nazi Germany, Hitler was fairly close to a European takeover, but the countries that he aligned himself with messed him up, by moving too fast, before he was able to take down Britain and Russia. Once Hitler would have gotten through the majority of Europe, the United States would have been at the top of his list to invade. But since the US joined the war earlier than expected, it gave Germany more than it could …show more content…
Russia has effectively been pushed in a corner, by its own leadership, and is now desperate to secure a future, and I believe that the other sovereign states sees that that is the case, and appeasing Russia-for now. If Russia decided to militarily occupy other nations, then a war may be in our future, but it would not turn out in favor for the Russians, who is already close to demise. Hitler was just power hungry, and used Germany as his vessel to get as much as possible. Germany’s neighboring countries underestimated how powerful they would get in such a short time, so when they appeased them, Germany took it as a pass to continue to do as it pleased. Once Germany took to invade other nations, then war became