Handout // 17.423
May 9, 2000
The Post-Cold War World and the Future of War

I. Major Themes we have covered­are they relevant today?

A. Security Dilemma; Spirals v. Deterrence

B. Military Factors (avoid situations of First Move Advantages; limit "Windows" whenever possible (fluctuations of power); beware of "False Optimism"; understand/limit the "need" for cumulative resources; avoid the appearance of "cheap war"; and to these ends--avoid "offense dominance" (and the illusion of offense dominance, whenever possible).

C. Understand the sources of and work to eliminate Misperceptions.

D. Spreading Democracy is probably a plus.

 Q: Are these themes relevant today, or is war more or less obsolete?
 

II. Kaysen thesis: Great Power War probably is Obsolete.

A. Mueller argued Great Power War is obsolete because it has become unthinkable--like dueling and slavery.

B. Kaysen says--yes, unthinkable but because politically and economically not rational, and oh yes--nuclear weapons makes that VERY CLEAR.

Q: Is it a NEW WORLD--is war obsolete?

If so, our study of Great Power Wars is a relic of the past. It is a NEW DAY. We should not really worry about, (and probably not bother with NATO expansion), and we should not worry about NMD as it impacts on other great powers' security dilemmas--because war is unthinkable between great powers. Instead there are all-new causes of war: terrorism, water disputes, refugee flows (and other spill-over problems from civil wars.)

 

 III. A perennial dispute with new alliances: Realism v. Cooperation A. Realism: relative gains matter/ security is scarce---don't rely on institutions/cooperation for security--a big mistake!

B. Liberal institutionalism: Cooperation can benefit all--maximize absolute gains. Security is not so scarce, don't be so paranoid--realism makes you shoot yourself in the foot!

C. Think about Mearsheimer v. Van Evera--

1.) Multipolarity will get ugly as Great powers withdraw from Europe.

2.) Causes of war have dissipated--satisfied Great Powers w/ legitimate elites--not prone to militarism and hyper-nationalism, and false beliefs in offense dominance (nuclear weapons have made this clear.) and democracy is spreading.

3.) Who's right? Will Great Powers be able to cooperate?

D. The new alliances: NATO expansion supported by hard core realists and neo-Wilsonian institutionalists. Similar odd coalitions for interventions after the Cold War (Gulf War, former Yugoslavia, Haiti?) and for "staying home."

 

 IV. "Squeamish Internationalism": Collective security, Peacekeeping, Promoting Transparency, Concerts and Disarmament. A. Collective Security: All against any aggressor.

B. Peacekeeping: patrolling ceasefires/observing violations of accords

C. Promoting Transparency: helping conflict resolution/avoiding misperceptions

D. Concerts: Great Powers act together to preserve the status quo.

E. Disarmament: Consider the SAC Generals calling for nuclear disarmament--A NEW DAY????

Q: No FULL ANSWERS HERE--must we ultimately behave as realists no matter what? Or is that a self-fulfilling prophecy? (The critique of critical theory, post-modernism, post-structuralism, reflectivism, and constructivism.)
 

 V. The Promise of Realism all the way:
A. Proliferation--end the security dilemma with a technical fix
B. OR: National Missile Defense--defense against aggressors

C. Hegemonic America--US dominance (perhaps the "responsible" powers of the world would welcome US protecting all from "irresponsible" rogues!)

1. Does the US have the power?

2. Does the US have the will?

3. Does the US have the wisdom?

4. Would this policing serve US interests? (or over-expansionist?)
 

 VI. Other solutions to WAR:
A. World Government--can it ever be made to work?
B. National Perceptual Engineering: E.g. Track II diplomacy--organized contacts between elites, hoping to cure their myths about each other? "Amnesia International"--replicate globally the work of the Europeans to coordinate textbook teachings (Eckert Institute/ Brunswick Schoolbook Institute). And create institutions that track and oppose war-causing ideas (similar to "teach tolerance" campaign; B'nai B'rith anti-defamation league). Should this be a top priority?

 

 VII. Wars on the short list: Likelihood, and how serious? A. Russia and its near neighbors . . .

B. China-Taiwan

C. North-South Korea

D. Inter-Arab

E. China-US Cold War????

F. Many civil wars (last year 37 on-going . . . are these big trouble?)

G. Other wars?