ipl-logo

John J Mearsheimer

1219 Words5 Pages

John J. Mearsheimer is a political scientist and a self described offensive realist, and in his book the Tragedy of Great Power Politics Mearsheimer describes and defends his views. From my understanding, an offensive realist is someone who believes in 3 main properties of the state. Firstly, offensive realist believe that states are inertly insecure about their own countries security, and this has a momentous effect on how countries behave. Next, an offensive realist believes that there are no “status quo powers” in any international system. Finally, offensive realist, such as Mearsheimer, believes that the main goal of all great powers is to first become a regional hegemon and then, eventually, a global hegemon. Mearsheimer also spends a considerable amount of time describing what he calls “the stopping power of water”. I believe that these ideas are mostly false. In this essay I hope to offer my opinion on each of these main points of Mearsheimer’s the Tragedy of Great Power Politics and offensive realism itself. Mearsheimer believes that states are always paranoid of the power of their neighbor and states fear that a more powerful state may take it’s sovereignty. Offensive realist …show more content…

Mearsheimer states that it is too costly for a state to cross a body of water to invade their enemies, this is why the U.K doesn’t have territories in Europe and Germany couldn’t capture the U.K during world war two. I mostly agree with this, but I also think that when a state is powerful enough it can overcome this boundary. America was able to fight wars with the Spanish and Japanese over great expanses of water and the U.K was able to capture and hold many foreign colonies despite being surrounded by water. Also, as technology advances, it may be even easier to quickly and efficiently transport and support troops across

Show More
Related
1385 Words | 6 Pages

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the highest-ranking and senior-most military officer in the United States Armed Forces and the principal military advisor to the President. Additionally, the Chairman advises the National Security Council, the Homeland Security Council, and the Secretary of Defense. Historical Context The Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) was an outgrowth of the ARCADIA summit conference in 1942 during World War II between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill (Joint History Office 2).

Read More
634 Words | 3 Pages

James Broussard’s Ronald Reagan: Champion of Conservative America gives a concise biography about the Ronald Reagan’s actions and views towards the issues shaping America during the time period. Broussard produces a picture of Reagan in this insightful narrative by including details from his childhood, his acting career, and his concerns with American politics. I found this book to be an entertaining interpretation of Ronald Reagan’s political career. Reagan had a difficult childhood. He and his family moved from town to town because of his father’s inability to keep a job due to his alcoholism.

Read More
1519 Words | 7 Pages

Viewing Ambassador Power’s statements through both the lens of liberalism and realism allows one to better understand the policies and ideas which she presents throughout her speech. The theoretical tradition of liberalism, specifically the neoliberal framing of it, assists in clarifying why it is necessary, in Ambassador Power’s mind, that states both cooperate and create a shared understanding of expectations by abiding to rules which have previously been defined and outlined. Ambassador Power argument shows that it is imperative that states join and posture to prevent Russia from taking any further actions, specifically ones which may jeopardize the security of the United States. Realism explains how the pursuit of power dictates the behaviors of states and the policies which they push. Given that there is a net amount of power, the prevention of another state, in this instance Russia, from gaining power inherently increases the power of all other states while at the same time escalating the security of said states.

Read More
1190 Words | 5 Pages

The lands that were annexed during this time were all located in foreign waters. It’s not much of a coincidence that the U.S wanted to control countries that were located in the there when looking at Document E. The book Influence Of Sea Power Upon History by Captain Alfred Thayer Mahan, speaks about how in the history of past battles always have a large portion of them take place in water. Using this article to analyze the U.S’s actions, we needed to have land in the waters in order for us to stand any chance in the future of world conflicts. This was also a chance to display the large naval power that Theodore Roosevelt had build up during his

Read More
864 Words | 4 Pages

Potent Leadership of Captain Jack Aubrey Beginning in the early 19th Century, the Napoleonic Wars revealed the ambition of the French Empire and desire for European domination, which was led by legendary military leader Napoleon I. As the French Empire invaded and conquered several countries, the opposing European coalitions scrambled to withstand and eventually defeat this rising power. While many would assume the strength of this empire too great to be resisted, one key factor gave the Coalition (primarily Britain) a ticket to victory: control of the seas. The mastery, size, and experience of this British Navy led to the defeat of the French.2 Perhaps most important in this fight was leadership and their use of unconventional tactics, which

Read More
1244 Words | 5 Pages

When George Washington presented his farewell address, he urged our fledgling democracy, to seek avoidance of foreign entanglements. However, as the world modernized, and our national interests spread, the possibility of not becoming involved in foreign entanglements became impossible. The arenas of open warfare and murky hostile acts have become separated by a vast gray line. Even today, choosing when and how to use US military force remain in question. The concept of national isolationism failed to prevent our involvement in World War

Read More
300 Words | 2 Pages

Every time we face problems we tend to come out with easiest and simple solutions to fix them; however, sometimes these solutions create bigger problems and they are harder to solve. For instance, Robert Strange McNamara was concerned with the deaths and injuries from car accidents. The easiest and simple solution that he came up to avoid car accidents was the invention of seat belts. Even though wearing a seat belt did not take too much effort, for people wearing a seat belt meant that cars were not safe. This belief caused the sale of cars to drop.

Read More
228 Words | 1 Pages

While the realists try to make broad, sweeping statements that sound like they could be logical but that in fact are merely bandwagon-type statements designed to sound good without proving their point, Walzer pointedly identifies all of the faulty logic in their arguments, their attempts at covering up their own inhumanity with shallow excuses, and the real truth about their justifications that they

Read More
925 Words | 4 Pages

The final phase of industrialization at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, saw the creation of railroads that allowed for rapid mobilization, and increasingly lethal military technology, such as machine guns. While these new technologies gave an inherent advantage to the defender, a “Cult of the Offensive” had enveloped pre-World War One Europe. In his essay, Civil-Military Relations and the Cult of the Offensive, 1914 and 1984, Jack Snyder argues that the offensive doctrines of the militaries of the major powers created an instable system that was a contributing cause to World War One (108). The offensive bias exhibited by each of the major powers was due to skewed civil-military relations attributed due to a lack of civilian control over the military, and the bureaucratic

Read More
902 Words | 4 Pages

The theory unleashes such dynamic forces that from the time of its inception up till now it has governed the international system of the world however things one day itself fall apart. The Realists mark the State as the locus of different international circles and these sovereign states have vested interests which are always selfish. Realism is a heartless theory, man is not supposed to be selfish in the way exaggerated by the Realist thinker however [he] is a seeker of knowledge and what so ever he stumbles upon, he keeps

Read More
2654 Words | 11 Pages

States are seeking power for their interest, their security, their economic growth, and so on. The great power states, for example, United State made humanitarian interventions in Middle East region such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria in the past few years. In my point of view, in case of US humanitarian intervention to Iraq and Afghanistan, there are potential threat of terrorist and threat of chimerical weapons in those countries. It is not only the threat of the people from those countries but also a major threat of the US’s national security; for example, the 9th, 11 issue. Moreover, there might be the other objectives or the trump cards we can never see such as war economy, expend power to the particular region, or something like that.

Read More
897 Words | 4 Pages

Idealists see realism as a set of assumptions about how and why states behave like they do, rather than a theory of foreign relations. They strongly criticise the realist thesis that the struggle for power and security is natural. They reject such a fatalistic orientation claiming that power is not natural, and simply a temporary phase of human history. They believe that by adhering completely and consciously to moral values moral values in behaviour, power struggle and war can be eliminated.

Read More
795 Words | 4 Pages

Therefore, it provides differences between the status quo power and progressive states, while maintaining and emphasizing the importance of government at the same time. In contrary, Structural Realism is more concerned on ensuring their survival, by seeking and maintaining that power. Structural Realism would treat states as they are black boxes: they are assumed to be alike (Mearsheimer). Furthermore, Classical Realism and Structural Realism differ in their views of interconnection in international politics, fundamentally what causes the observed outcomes in relations among states. Classical Realists believe that the international world is one of interacting states, and causes run in one direction.

Read More
1938 Words | 8 Pages

Also, Realism ideas believe that state would act according to their own ideas and needs when Liberalism believes that state would act according to citizens ideas and needs. Realism believes in conflicts, aggression, militaristic expansions and Liberalism believes in measuring of power trough countries economy, in the cooperation and peace, in the nation/people`s rights and in ideas of political and nations/peoples freedom. Also, Realism believes that United Nation is pointless because organization cant keeps another state what it wants for example: (Russian annexation of Crimea and Russian occupation in Georgia) but actually Liberalism believes that United Nations can`t force states to obey the organization, but Liberals think that UN is still important in our reality. Liberalism just believes that international organizations like United Nations, give states the ways in which to cooperate with each other and to gain one another's trust. Also Realists argue that all states have same interests and all countries are interested in increasing

Read More
1381 Words | 6 Pages

The international relations schools of thought known as Realism and Idealism identify specific and similar characteristics of actors in the conceptual development of their theories. While many of these characteristics can be generalized as being synonymous with the two theories, both theories make a separate distinction in what specifically constitutes an actor. In Realism, the term “actor” refers directly and solely to the state: a combination of government, leaders, decision-makers, etc, that act as a unitary entity to promote the interests of the state. Idealists, however, expand on what constitutes an actor to include both the state and people. Not only do the principles of Idealism assert that the state and people should be considered actors, in fact, both they must be viewed as actors.

Read More

More about John J Mearsheimer

Related Topics

Open Document