Waltz, Kenneth N. (1988) ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory’, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18:4: 615-628.

Waltz, Kenneth N. (1988) ‘The Origins of War in Neorealist Theory’, The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 18:4: 615-628.

• Similar to Morgenthau's theories of power at a domestic political level, the author states that power is the main factor at the international level, with states acting based on a deficiency or surplus of power. For states, however, the ultimate concern is not power -- which can cause issues -- but security. (616).
• Excessive weakness may prompt states to attack that nation.
• Excessive strength may prompt other states to begin cooperating against that state or to build up their strength relative to the strong nation.
• Morgenthau identified two causes of conflict at the domestic level to replace the 'men are evil' logic of the classical realists. Instead, men are driven by the natural conflict resulting from competition over scarce resources and a desire for increased power (617).
• Neorealist IR theory rejects desire for power as an acceptable reason for explaining international conflict -- b/c it is constant, whereas men are not always at war. Instead, we must look at the structure of the Int'l system (618).
• The essential characteristic of the international system is anarchy, or the lack of an ordered system above the nation-state. The actors within this model are unitary nation-states wanting, at minimum, to survive (618).
• The mechanics of the system change depending on the number of great powers and their relative strengths.
• Competition and conflict among states are necessary conditions of an anarchic international structure. States cannot depend on a higher authority, so they must constantly be alert to their own security and protect against threats to it. This leads to suspicion about the intent of other states, under which military armament for defense can be interpreted as an offensive move, it a 'security dilemma' (619).
• "The origins of hot wars lie in cold wars, and the origins of cold wars are found in the anarchic ordering of the international arena" (620).
• The anarchic int'l system is fundamentally unstable, leading to a main question about whether we can affect the structure of how wars take place. Namely, is war more common under bipolar or multipolar systems?
• In alliances among states of equal strength unity is enforced by fear, as a defeat of one's ally means total destruction and isolation. In alliances between states of unequal power, the smaller states need the large state, but the relationship is not mutual: think of the allies during the Suez Crisis (621).
• Bipolar systems are more stable b/c fewer players can trigger instability. The example being that in a multipolar alliance of equals, a fuck-up by one party demands support from other parties, whereas only the two great powers of a bipolar system can start a devastating great power war (622).
• "In a multipolar world, dangers are diffused, responsibilities unclear, and definitions of vital interests easily obscured" (622).
• The multipolar system's flaw is miscalculation, which is easy within a complex web of vital alliances. The fault of the bipolar system is overreaction by one of the great powers. The author argues that ultimately miscalculation is more likely to result in conflict and therefore multipolar systems are more dangerous for war (623).
• "The chances of peace rise if states can achieve their most important ends without actively using force. War becomes less likely as the costs of war rise in relation to the possible gains" (624).
• The advent of nuclear weapons has dramatically increased the potential costs of war, as any conflict could now potentially spiral into nuclear strikes with the possibility of absolute annihilation. Now the expectation for war, even victorious war, includes devastating loses (625).
• A nuclear weapon does not need to be compared to the arsenals or capabilities of other powers. It's mere existence poses a threat to the planet and all states in the int'l system. This makes nuclear weapons fundamentally different from conventional weaponry (627).