WHY DO ALL STATES FIGHT? THE THIRD IMAGE -Even nice leaders and nice states fight. -Very different states and people behave similarly and predictably -Some periods and power configurations have a lot more fighting than others.

WHAT ARE REALISM’S KEY ASSUMPTIONS? What drives international politics? Rationality vs. the power of morality, norms, ideas, individual leaders, or domestic politics The main unit of analysis: states The main quality of the intl. system : Anarchy=Sovereignty = Self-help=Aggression & preemption & free-riding= perpetual conflict What are the two big ideas out there with respect to how to deal with security dilemmas (Kant vs. Rousseau) All intl. politics is about power, but there are some debates: –Is anarchy the problem or just the facilitator of bad apples –Relative vs. absolute power shifts (Zero-sum vs. positive sum-assumptions) –What are the most important types of power? Hard, sticky, and soft? What are the “liberal” objections to classical realism? (China as example)

DIFFERENT FLAVORS OF REALISM All that was classical realism Neo-liberalism (Ken Waltz most famously) argues that anarchy isn’t the problem, but certain configurations of power under anarchy are the problem… –Balances of power, esp. bipolar systems are best –Equality of capabilities (parity) is the most pacific arrangement –We should allow horizontal, but not vertical WMD proliferation. Defense realism argues that (1) most states seek power for defense purposes (prospect theory… Fighting over Texas vs. Fighting over Canada); (2) conflict is most likely when there is a large advantage for one state over the other; (3) When a state’s defensive resources is not easily distinguishable from its offense. Defensive realists acknowledge that some states and leaders may be more affected by war pressures than others; anticipate that states that threaten will create band-wagon of opponents Offensive Realism (Mearsheimer). States always maximize power bc of unknown future. They especially expand to the sea, offshore balance, & buck-pass

IS SYSTEMIC CHANGE THE REAL PROBLEM? WHEN REALSISTS PRED When is war most likely in the “power cycle” of international relations? When change in the intl system is both abrupt and unpredictable… Why? (when are security dilemmas the biggest problem?) When a regional hegemon’s rising power capabilities mismatch its aspirations (desired role, breath of its interests): status discrepancy Things get more dicey if a global hegemon’s power is in play and the speed of its change? Why don’t declining hegemon’s usually help the rising power of its choice (US and GB) Things are more problematic depending on the number and proximity of states going through rapid change The most problematic type of change is when a new set of fundamental intl. rules and regimes is at stake… like now.

IS UNIPOLAR US THE BEST? Why are empires so stable?: Is the concentration of power a good thing? Collective dilemmas, and institution formation How do hierarchy (both global and regional) and the speed of change impact the probability of war? Why do empires inevitably come and go? Gilpin’s War and Change in World Pol: –Free-riding and overreach –The law of uneven growth –Consumerism, innovation, & decadence –Status discrepancy

WOULD A MULTIPOLAR SYSTEM BE BETTER? Why do balances of power matter? Do cross-cutting cleavages make for more stability? More actors, more mediators More actors, easier to balance: slower arms races More actors makes it harder to concentrate war on one other actor Multipolarity is less certain, so war reluctance more likely

WOULD A BIPOLAR CHINA- US WORLD BE BETTER? Fewer actors, fewer mistakes, lower possibility that one conflict goes global Fewer actors, more institutionalized communication Fewer actors, less impact any defection has Balance of power is easier to achieve, less of a security dilemma Two parties = moderation: just like with the median voter

WHY DO REALISTS THINK WE’RE HEADED FOR DANGER? WHY DO LIBERALS THINK WE’RE NOT? Liberals vs Realists: The debate over China as an example What’s John Mearsheimer’s view of the likely trajectory of US-Chinese relations in the next few decades? Why do “liberals” reject the idea that China and the US will fight?