Kenneth Waltz talks about the International System as a Structure with interacting units each affected by the others’ behavior within that system. Waltz leaves out the internal workings of these units I .e the states, and moves on discuss the arrangement and the character of these units within the system.
According the Waltz the Structure to this system is decentralized and anarchic, but how could there be structure if there is no hierarchy, rather, just anarchy? He describes this structure as being analogous to the micro-economic structure where you only have self-interested actors and their aggregate actions sum to something totally unexpected. This analogy however, is in my opinion questionable as the actions of the actors here do not sum to something unexpected rather, this sum does not disturb the equilibrium of the balance of power.
Let me explain the equilibrium this way; if State A had X amount of nukes in its arsenal and State B had Y amount of nukes, and State A and State B both act rationally out of self-interest, then if State A decides to increase the amount of nukes in its arsenal, State B being a rational actor within that system acting out of self-interest and focuses solely on countering State A's strategy by increasing the amount of nukes they possess. This approach is flawed in the sense that it acts on reactionary bases and is unable to have a proactive approach. This undermines a nation's ability to build upon its strength, be it something other hard power e.g nukes and always looks upon the actions of a more powerful nation.
The idea that states do not always act react to circumstances, but are in many cases proactive makes sense. Another important factor that might even determine how states behave, is their capacity to react. Even if a state wishes to increase its nuclear arsenal, if it does not have the means to do so, then the willingness alone does not do much to affect the balance of power.
ReplyDeleteBut states have acted in the way you described nuclear buildup. For example, think about the U.S. and the Soviet Union, or India and Pakistan. Just because it didn't make sense from an economic perspective, it did make sense from a military, balance of power perspective. Balance of power politics is not always the best strategy for states, but it is something that states appear to do.
ReplyDelete