WHY DO STATES WANT POWER?
There is a simple structural realist explanation for why states compete among themeselves for power. It’s
based of five straightforward assumptions about the international system.
The first assumption is that great powers are the main actors in world politics and they operate in an anarchic
system. This is not to say that the system is characterized by chaos or disorder. Anarchy is an ordering
principle, it simply means that there is no centralized authority or ultimate arbiter that stands above states.
The second assumption is that all states possess some offensive military capability, each state has the power
to inflict some harm on its neighbour.
The third assumption is that states can never be certain about the intentions of other states. States want to
know whether other states are determined to use force to alter the balance of power or whether they are
satisfied enough with it that they have no interest in using force to change it.
The forth assumption is that the main goal of statesi s survival. States seek to maintain their territorial
integrity and the autonomy of their domestic political order. They can pursue other goals like prosperity and
protecting human rights.
The fifth assumption is that states are rational actors, which is to say they are capable of coming up with
sound strstegies that maximize their prospects for survival.
None of these assumptions by themselves says that states will or should compete with each other for power.
The greates fear is that another state might have the capability as well as the motive to attack them. The level
of fear between states varies from case to case, buti t can never be reduced to an inconsequential level.
Great powers also understand that they operate in a self-help world; they have to rely on themselves to
ensure their survival, because other states are potential threats and because there is no higher authority they
can turn to if they’re attacked.
HOW MUCH POWER IS ENOUGH?
There is a disagreement among structural realists about how much power state should aim to control.
Offensive realists argue that states should always be looking for opportunities to gain more power and should
do so whenever it seems feasible.
Whilw dwfensive realists recognize that the international system creates strong incentives to gain additional
increments of power, they mantain that it’s strategically foolish to persue hegemony.
Defensive realists emphasize that if any state becomes too powerful, balancing will occur. The other great
powers will build up their militaries and from a balancing coalition that will leave the aspiring hegemon at
least less secure, and maybe even destroy it. Some defensive realists argue that there’s an offence-defence
balance, which indicate show easy or difficult it’s to conquer territory or defeat a defender in battle. Further
they argue that, even when conquest is feasible, it does not pay: the costs outweigh the benefits. In sum, not
only is conquest difficult, but, even in those rare instances where great powers conquer another state, they
get few benefits and lots of trouble.
Offensive realists understand that states usually balance against dangerous foes, but they mantain that
balancing is often inefficent, and this inefficenty provides opportunities for a clever aggressor to take
advantage of its adversaries.
Finally, while offensive realists acknowledge that sometimes conquest does not pay, they also point out that
sometimes it does. They also expect great powers to be constantly looking for opportunities to gain
advantage over each other, with the ultimate prize being hegemony.
WHAT CAUSES GREAT POWER WAR?
Structural realists recognize that states can go to war for any number of reasons, which makes it possible to
come up with a simple theory that points to a single facto ras the main cause of war. Wars motivated largely
