Prominent in realist theory is the concept of anarchy. Anarchy in international politics is defined by Mearsheimer as a system of ‘independent political units (states) that have no central authority above them’ (Mearsheimer 1994). Such a system promotes the concepts of self-help, statism and survival which suggest that war is the result of independent states fighting for power and national interest in order to survive. Given that the world has only been at peace for 8% of all of recorded history (Hedges 2003), these concepts are of great significance to realist in order to dissect war and understand why it is so prominent in international politics. Therefore, the bases of this essay will be formed using the aforementioned concepts to outline
…show more content…
The idea that ‘states coexist in a competitive arena’ (Waltz 1995) is proved to be exceedingly accurate when regarding wars throughout history. The Cold War for example shows clearly a fight between states (the US and the USSR) to be the hegemon of the international community after the introduction of nuclear weapons threatened the balance of power. Arguably still this was a fight not just for physical security but for the security of ideals, in the eyes of the U.S if “commy” ideology spread then this would pose a threat not only to national security but to their sovereignty also. The Cold War however is viewed to be controversial between Liberalists and Realists. From a liberal perspective the fact that the Cold War ended through peaceful means without conflict proves that war is not inevitable and that diplomatic means and groups such as the UN can ensure peace. This however is idealistic. The fact that the U.S and USSR where never in direct conflict was because both states realised that any form of nuclear war would not go in either’s favour. National interest and the security of their people was enough to motivate peace; even if it was a fragile peace. However, the fact still remains that if either the US or the USSR believed that they could have become the hegemon without severe losses to national interests there would have been a war, institutions and diplomacy did not prevent conflict. And as rightly argued by Waltz ‘a state cannot be sure that today’s friends will not be tomorrow’s enemy’ (Waltz 2000), there is no way to guarantee lasting peace so states must be sure to protect themselves even if that will result in war. Hence, the need to protect the states sovereignty does inevitably result in war; war is a tool to ensure power and security and as such will always
The idea that ‘states coexist in a competitive arena’ (Waltz 1995) is proved to be exceedingly accurate when regarding wars throughout history. The Cold War for example shows clearly a fight between states (the US and the USSR) to be the hegemon of the international community after the introduction of nuclear weapons threatened the balance of power. Arguably still this was a fight not just for physical security but for the security of ideals, in the eyes of the U.S if “commy” ideology spread then this would pose a threat not only to national security but to their sovereignty also. The Cold War however is viewed to be controversial between Liberalists and Realists. From a liberal perspective the fact that the Cold War ended through peaceful means without conflict proves that war is not inevitable and that diplomatic means and groups such as the UN can ensure peace. This however is idealistic. The fact that the U.S and USSR where never in direct conflict was because both states realised that any form of nuclear war would not go in either’s favour. National interest and the security of their people was enough to motivate peace; even if it was a fragile peace. However, the fact still remains that if either the US or the USSR believed that they could have become the hegemon without severe losses to national interests there would have been a war, institutions and diplomacy did not prevent conflict. And as rightly argued by Waltz ‘a state cannot be sure that today’s friends will not be tomorrow’s enemy’ (Waltz 2000), there is no way to guarantee lasting peace so states must be sure to protect themselves even if that will result in war. Hence, the need to protect the states sovereignty does inevitably result in war; war is a tool to ensure power and security and as such will always