The world has experienced many wars in the past with the most memorable being world war I and World War II. Superpowers are currently fighting to protect the world from plunging into world war III with concepts such as nuclear weapons becoming more common across the globe. A country's military power and its ability to exploit this power is used to rank a country among the superpowers. Dominant superpowers and rising superpowers are currently forming allies meant to protect their individual interests which also result in a state of conflict while declining powers are faced with a greater threat of attack by the dominant superpowers. The position of authority is determined by a country's military power, industrial infrastructure, technological advancement, natural resources, economic growth and social stability among others - factors that generally fall into three categories: systemic, national attribute, and idiosyncratic. However, none of these indicators is sufficient to earn a state its position in power. In general terms, systemic factors affect the alignment behavior, with national attribute factors dictating foreign policy, whereas idiosyncratic factors spell out modus operandi of any given state. None of these factors, however, operates in isolation, as foreign policy makers determine how their nation states relate with other states around the globe.
Military power and technological advancement have historically played a critical role historically in determining how nations align themselves and relate with each other on the international stage. National governments in states are believed to be the highest bodies of authority in many countries, and they are constantly trying to reinforce their position of power. Democracy was later introduced to limit the amount of power possessed by governing bodies in states. International relations is a concept that emerged between 1989 and 1991 to foster the links and conduct relations amongst various nations across the world (Lebow 249). Most realists argue that the events leading to the invention of international relations are likely to shift the order of doing business from bipolarity to multipolarity which is likely to increase the number of conflicts between nations. This is with consideration to the fact that these states are accustomed to the existence of particular superpowers since 1945. The state of being in harmony with the superpowers is believed to have contributed to the peace currently experienced between various nations in the world. Organized political segregation and groupings occur as governments attempt to retain or acquire more power (Bloomfield and Moulton 2). According to Morgenthau, the concept of international relations was based on nuclear weapons and bipolarity. The deep state of silence after 1991 followed by the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union has led to a lot of speculations into the issue of war. Multi-polarity is feared to interfere with the precise alignment of power as well as the leadership in various nations in the world. Bipolarity is, on the other hand, believed to be less war-prone when compared to multi-polarity, a factor that most analysts use to explain the current extended period of peace that is being experienced between the super powers. War proneness is part of the system, and the polarity is part of the structural properties of the system. According to Waltz, nuclear weapons are a second force that has helped to maintain the peace between states. Nuclear weapons are a unit level to the system, and their introduction into the system led to a system change. The possession of nuclear weapons by some states ensures that others will not attack them and spur a war (Lieber and Press 38). The possession of nuclear weapons by the superpowers is thus responsible for the withstanding peace that is being witnessed amongst different states, although most would refer to the situations as a cold war.
There exists various components of power which include population, size, industrial capacity, natural resources, national character and morale, quality of diplomacy, government and military preparedness (Lebow 254). These factors are constantly at play, and one component on its own cannot be used to determine the power of a state. The Soviet Union for instance always had the ability to become dominant, but it was only considered a super power when it possessed the industrial power which enabled it to produce nuclear weapons. The breaking of the Soviet Union did not entirely bring an end to the bipolar system. Long before the splitting of the Soviet Union, other countries such as China, Japan, the United States and the western union had managed to acquire levels of higher military power and performance compared to their Soviet Union counterparts. International organizations are used to prevent war, but in some instances, taking sides contradicts this function (Claude 83). Nations are ranked by their ability to exploit their military power. Countries which have managed to manufacture nuclear weapons but lack technological and industrial advancement are therefore not recognized as superpowers (Lieber and Press 48). Britain was able to attain its status as a superpower since it had experienced engineers, a developed financial condition and a dense and well-developed transport network (Lebow 235). The Soviet Union, on the other hand, failed to advance and instead remained backward. During the 1990’s, the Soviet Union started retreating from the European Union a factor that was feared to result in a systematic change.
The United States has remained at the top of the rank while Britain, the Soviet Union, and West Germany fall way behind (Lebow 236). Hegemony war can only occur if either of these countries or any other country acquires the same status as any of the dominant powers. One of the many reasons that led to the decline of the Soviet Union is believed to be its withdrawal from Eastern Europe. This anomaly is thought to have been made by the Soviet Union following some domestic and political considerations. Their position in Eastern Europe was considered to protect the Soviet Union from an Attack by the United States. The move by the Soviet Union is seen as a decline following the weakening of its position as a superpower. The country’s growth rate was declining at an alarming rate by the 1970's. This decrease in the country's economy was noticed a little too late for the Soviet Union to initiate the necessary changes to their systems. Other factors that led to the decline include the reforms that took place in the country's administrative power and the excessive investments in the agricultural sector which proved ineffective. Differences in leadership models between Gorbachev and Brezhnev were also responsible for the decline (Lebow 260). The decision by Eastern Europe to engage themselves in the manufacture of nuclear weapons is also another factor to consider. By withdrawing from the Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union protected itself from the consequences of its actions or that of its protégé. The Soviet Union is believed to have questioned the integrity of Eastern Europe.
The international system is still governed by anarchy, where individual states feel responsible for their security. Security communities which are believed to assure individual states that a real war will not occur are becoming more common across the globe (Claude 83). One such body is NATO, which unites states such as Hungary, Czech Republic, and Poland, is meant to assure these states of their security and economic prosperity. Leadership is also another factor to consider. A leader may improve a country's position, but their successors might come up with a completely different leadership style which might disrupt their position of power (Claude 92). Some nations are unrelenting and may insist on going up against states that possess more power than themselves. The Soviet Union caused a war when it failed to level with Germany with the hope that it would expand its territories. Natural selection is also a common aspect amongst states which are aspiring to avoid a state of disadvantage in the event of a third world war which is likely to involve the intensive use of nuclear weapons.
Actors in the society are consistently contending for who among them is more fit to be in power. Human beings are naturally political beings (Bloomfield and Moulton 7). Honor based societies have a strong desire for recognition in the community (Lebow 262). States are overwhelmed with the appetite for wealth and will go to great lengths to achieve these desires. In the current world, most countries are fighting for equality. Economic interests form the basis of their policies and conflicts are likely to arise with those who come between them and their desires. Human beings are more destructive when they are organized into groups than when operating in isolation (Bloomfield and Moulton 8). Aristotle defines fear as a form of pain which arises from imagining oneself in danger or a state of hurt in the future. Fear also leads actors in the system to break down causing a disruption of the system (Lieber and Press 42). Rising powers seek recognition while existing and dominant powers continue to seek hegemony. Rising powers often make allies with dominant powers and are less likely to strike each other. Dominant powers are more likely to launch attacks on declining powers.
Trends around the globe reveal that war has lost its aura, and war is less likely. The value of life has risen, and most nations would rather preserve it than go into a war. These attitudes are associated with the realization that war is more costly. The public is more informed and less likely to fall prey into the liberal intentions that were used to justify the attacks that were a common American intervention. Throughout the world, people have protested against war and are unwilling to participate. All the six wars that were initiated by America were all supported by the public opinion. The 31 wars were all spurred by democracies such as the United States, China, Pakistan and India (Lieber and Press 47). Democracies have also turned to their military options on several occasions in history. International relations invoked late entrants who were willing to invest heavily in military weapons during the 18th century. These countries include Ukraine, Russia, and Hungary among others. Countries stand to lose more in the event of war than they will gain from one.
In conclusion, the power of a state is determined by the country’s military powers and its ability to exploit this military power. The possession of nuclear weapons on its own is not sufficient to determine a country’s position as a superpower. Other factors to consider include economy, industrial infrastructure, technological advancement, natural resources and political stability among others. These factors have to complement each other to reinforce a state’s position of power. Countries are joining security unions such as NATO to assure themselves of security and economic prosperity. While the dominant superpowers seek hegemony with their peers, rising superpowers seek recognition, a factor that has caused the superpowers and rising powers to be in conflict with each other. The possession of nuclear weapons by the superpowers is, however, causing conflicting states to hold back from spurring a war. Both states and the public have changed their attitudes concerning war and are more likely to prevent war than initiate one.
Works Cited
Bloomfield, Lincoln P and Allen Moulton. Managing International Conflict; From Thory to Policy. New York : Cengage Learning, 1996. Print.
Claude, Inis L. Jr. "Just Wars; Doctrines and Institutions." Political Science Quarterly (1980): 83-96.
Lebow, Richard Ned. "The Long Peace, the End of the Cold War, and the Failure of Realism." International Organization (1994): 249-277.
Lieber, Keir A and Daryl G. Press. "The Nukes We Need ." Foreign Affairs (2009): 39-51.
