ipl-logo

Rationalist Explanations Of War

879 Words4 Pages

This week’s readings by Fearon, Schultz, Oneal & Russet, and Lebow mainly focus on war and peace theory from an international relations perspective. Why does war occur, or what can prevent war from happening? Can states bargain to reduce the costs and risks of war? Fearon claims that rationalist explanations for war do not really bring effective clarifications for why war occurs. The five traditional rationalist explanations include ‘anarchy’, ‘expected benefits greater than expected costs’, ‘rational preventive war’, ‘rational miscalculation due to lack of information’, and ‘rational miscalculation or disagreement about relative power’ (Fearon, 1995). Fearon’s central puzzle is that wars are risky and costly, however they occur anyways. The above assumptions fail to explain the puzzle. …show more content…

In order to exclude the costs and risks of war, states should be able to bargain. The author gives few assumptions required for bargaining, such as states highly knowing that one state would win in war can prevent war. For example, during the Cold War, if USSR knew that USA would win the war for sure, both states could bargain, even without going to war in the first place. In addition, states mostly fail to cooperate and choose to go to war under certain causal mechanisms that include misinterpretation of private information, and states’ incapability of keeping the deal. States revealing their private information to each other can bring peace, but mostly they all refuse not to share, due to mistrust. If USA and USSR trusted each other and were able to bargain, the Cold War would probably not occur. Also, this relates to

Show More
Related
916 Words | 4 Pages

Why Can’t We Be Friends?: The Rise of Tension between the US and USSR post-WWII Dating back to at least the start of communism, the world saw the gradual rise of the Cold War between the United States of America (USA) and the United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). Although the Cold War was may have been inevitable because of these countries differing visions of economic policy, governmental systems, and the postwar world in general, it was during the years 1941-1949 when it became imminent. In this time, suspicion and tension between the Superpowers increased due to the battle between communism and capitalism, as well as their different governmental systems.

Read More
965 Words | 4 Pages

The most significant factors that led to the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union were ideological differences, unequal war costs, and lack of trust. The United States and the Soviet Union went from being allies to being enemies through their ideological differences. Document A states," ...that capitalism

Read More
745 Words | 3 Pages

The second document highlights the National Security Council 68, a central document of the Cold War that laid out the strategic foundation for American foreign policy after the devastating decline of western European powers during World War II left the United States and Soviet Union as the dominant nations. The National Security Council argues that the Soviet Union poses a threat due to “being animated by a new fanatic faith” in communism to impose “absolute authority over the world” (Doc 2). This type of behavior is anti-ethical to the American values, so the fight between America and the Soviet Union was inevitable. The document outlined possible responses of isolation, diplomatic efforts to negotiate, or the rapid buildup of strength of

Read More
882 Words | 4 Pages

During the long and gruesome second world war, the Soviet Union and the United States were allies because their mutual goal was to destroy the strong military powerhouse of Germany. After completing this daunting task, the United States and Soviet Union each became eager to obtain sole possession atop the international spectrum, meaning the world’s leading superpower. An era known as the Cold War began immediately following World War II and lasted well into the latter twentieth century, but this “war” was not the usual physical war that fills history but a bloodless war of social and governmental world dominance. Although the Cold War did not involve actual fighting and the loss of numerous United States soldiers’ lives, the tension filled

Read More
1321 Words | 6 Pages

Following the end of World War II, relations between the Soviet Union and the United States quickly deteriorated, with tensions rising and both nations pushed to the brink of war. This strain arose largely due to animosity and secrecy from both parties, as each side wondered what the other was planning and tried to create policies to protect themselves from these possibilities. In the case of the United States, President Truman often incorrectly interpreted Soviet intentions, which ultimately led to the Cold War. He believed that Stalin wanted war when the Soviets were just trying to protect themselves after the war, were retaliating against aggressive Western policies, and were using the same rhetoric that the West was using.

Read More
477 Words | 2 Pages

Although anti-war elements often argue that war could be avoided if only the prospective protagonist would sit down and talk things over, it is important to understand how a sit down works to be successful. Communication between two conflicting parties is a tough process whether it is between two people, two businesses or two or more countries. There is no way to know for sure if sitting down and talking things over could have prevented the war of 1812, it may have helped, but it would have just delayed the inevitable. A disagreement that leads to conflict is no different whether it is between two people or two countries. The only difference is the scale of the people affected.

Read More
893 Words | 4 Pages

The Cold War was a “hybrid” war between the United States and the Soviet Union that started right after the end of World War II in 1947 (Two Super…). Both countries had strong political tensions toward each other. During the Cold War, although the two countries did not battle each other militarily, as a result of all the escalating tensions, the threat of an outright war made all parties nervous. The two countries, along with each other’s allies, differed in their opinions on postwar arrangements, with the Soviets backing out of their promise in the Yalta agreement, they were more interested in the spread of communism in the post WWII era.

Read More
1424 Words | 6 Pages

The thought of having peace is almost always thought of as a good thing. Sometimes, however, peace is not always such a good thing and can lead to even worse situations than before. One reason why peace isn’t always good and can lead to war is because of punishments put onto other countries for their previous actions. Another reason why peace can lead to war is because alliances will always be thought of in peace treaties. The last reason why peace can lead to war is because some governments don’t really get much of a say in peace talks.

Read More
727 Words | 3 Pages

War is a conflict that has been seen by every human civilization to some extent, and is sure to be seen by those in the future. These hostile situations can be caused by a variety of situations, including land, resources, philosophy, and religion. Though the exact cause and result of each war is different, there are ways to gauge the effectiveness and permissibility of the actions of governments and armed forces during war. This is the premise of Just War Theory. Just War is philosophy of rating a war as ethically just or not, which has three basic requirements along with a scale for comparison.

Read More
1424 Words | 6 Pages

Because of the tension between the two countries, both the United States and the Soviet Union came to the conclusion that

Read More
1428 Words | 6 Pages

When discussing the differences between the two wars, he lets the reader know the differences early on, which helps the reader understand precisely what the wars are and are not (Haass, 7). When Haass dissects a war of choice, he masterfully explains the headspaces that many actors were in. His explanation of the legal and international ramifications and their effects on foreign policy are also done with great skill, specifically in sections explaining how the United Nations and the United States population react and can influence wars of choice. However, Haass fails to explain how a war of choice occurs and why they are wrong.

Read More
126 Words | 1 Pages

For Mearsheimer, this is the very basis of realistic thinking and in turn equates international order to anarchy. 2. Great powers maintain and continue to acquire militaristic capabilities in order to eradicate the idea of weakness and establish sovereignty over lesser powers. 3. A country can never be sure of another country’s motive hence each party is left

Read More
486 Words | 2 Pages

This aspect of Just War Theory posits

Read More
312 Words | 2 Pages

As the cold war nightmares began to fade away and the relatively stable power balance in the world began to crumble, the world set its sights on understanding and focusing in on the small wars that were waging within the borders of individual countries. Countries like Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Burundi, Liberia, and Afghanistan saw their countries completely ripped apart by civil war and some are even still waging today. Often, the causes of these wars have been discussed as arising from either greed or grievance. Scholars such as Collier and Hoeffler have positioned themselves deeply in the camp that postulates that it is greed more often than grievance that causes these civil wars. There are very few that exist on the other side of this argument,

Read More
902 Words | 4 Pages

The first great-war shattered the human mind so profound that out of its aftermaths’ emerged a fresh discipline (in 1919 at the University of Whales known to us as International Relations) proposed to prevent war. “It was deemed by the scholars that the study of International Politics shall find the root cause of the worlds political problems and put forward solutions to help politicians solve them” (Baylis 2014:03). International Relations happened to play the role of a ‘correcting-mechanism’ restoring the world order of peace and amity by efforting at its best to maintain the worlds’ status quo. However with the emergence of a second world war much more massive that the first put at stake all the values of that young discipline of IR. The

Read More

More about Rationalist Explanations Of War

Related Topics

Open Document