The Polarity Of Japan During The Cold War

1094 Words5 Pages

Bipolar world is a system where we have two super powers. The best example for this type of polarity is the Cold War between U.S and Soviet Union in a period from 1945 to 1990. All the other super powers were defeated or in a bad economic position. U.S and Soviet Union were obviously the most powerful states in the world in this period with the most advanced, sophisticated and technological nuclear weapons. Bandwagoning is when a country join the stronger alliance of state, in the hope of sharing the spoils of victory. A good example for that was what Japan did during the Cold War. Japan decided to ally itself with the U.S in a bilateral treaty created in 1951 against Soviet Union potential threaten to Japan. There was no need for military …show more content…

Because this subsequent security predicament would leave the trying hegemon less secure, cautious pragmatists keep up that it is in a state's enthusiasm to keep up existing conditions as opposed to expand its power.
Offensive realism acknowledges that debilitated states for the most part adjust against risky enemies, be that as it may, they keep up that adjusting is frequently wasteful and that this wastefulness gives chances to a sharp attacker to exploit its adversaries. Buck passing, as opposed to joining an adjusting coalition, is another strategy hostile pragmatists point to while questioning the adjust of energy theory.
Hostile pragmatists trust that inside adjusting measures, for example, expanding guard spending, actualizing enrollment, are just viable to a specific degree as there are generally noteworthy breaking points on what number of extra assets an undermined state can assemble against an aggressor. However, since hostile pragmatists speculate that states are continually trying to amplify their energy, states are "successfully occupied with inward adjusting all the …show more content…

States are preferring to use soft power rather than hard power (military intervention). Also, countries adapt something called democratic peace which is a theory that democracies are hesitating to engage in armed conflict with other identified democracies. Democratic peace theory seeks to explain 3 different facts: democracies don’t fight another democracy, democracies do fight autocracies, and autocracies do fight other autocracies. There are two primary explanations for democratic peace which are institutional explanation and normative explanation. First, the institutional explanation is a democratic system with checks, balances and the need to explain support from citizens makes it hard for the chief executive to declare war. It is like leader cannot decide to go to war without the congress approval. Second, the normative explanation which democracies have norms of peaceful conflict resolution leading them to negotiate before they try to fight. Democracies have no need to fight with other democracies because they have similar