In class on Thursday we discussed how from the Realist prospective, a state only faces consequences if they lose militarily. This means, in theory, that the supreme military power has no limitations. This is a very simplistic viewpoint.
Sometimes having a superior military is irrelevant to home field advantage. For example, the United States military was undeniably superior to the Vietnamese, especially since Vietnam was such a divided, broken country. Granted, other countries helped Vietnam, but as far as military power, the United States was far superior. The strongest, most militarized countries have still met limitations. Napoleon and Hitler had military strength second to none, not even met by alliances of the other great powers of the time. Both believed the realist thought that military power surpasses all other strength. Both met their downfall from having this viewpoint. There much more to a countries strength than just the military. Alliances, economic ability, morale, and timing all play important roles in the security of a nation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The realist response to your argument would be: but military strength matters above all else. How would you respond to that?
Given the examples, military strength isn't as easily measured as is seems, therefore it is too deceiving to judge power by percieved millitary strength. Without strong economic power, the military will have no resources and without the countries support (in a democracy) and a nationalist backing of the military, there will be no recruits, making it weak. Therefore, relying on military strength alone without taking other variables into account will actually weaken your military. There is also the case of Costa Rica, which has no military yet relative to its neighbors has a high standard of living. In conclusion, military strength cannot survive without economic strength, while economic strength can survive without military strength.
But wouldn't a realist then say that economic strength exists for the purpose of building military strength? Conceivably, without a military to defend assets, another state with military power could come in and take control of the wealth.
Something you raised in your post: your examples about Vietnam, Hitler, and Napoleon are valid. However, a realist would likely point out that the aggressors in these situations were not acting rationally, which goes counter to one of the bedrock realist assumptions about state behavior.
Post a Comment