Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Session 13: Dr. Van Evera or How I Learned to Stop Worrying And Love The Bomb

Stephen Van Evera is a professor of International Relations at M.I.T. In his article, The Cult of the Offensive, he argues about the 'cult of offensive' that formed prior to World War One in which states seek to be the aggressors by accumulating as much hard power as possible in order to mount an indefensible attack against other nations.

Van Evera refers to the Cult of the Offensive as being the main reason behind the bloodshed and chaos of WWI. He posits that the states were terribly mistaken in choosing to be so aggressive in their foreign policies. Their radical beliefs led to the rise of this cult which caused WWI. Van Evera highlights five major dangers which arise from being heavily offensive; more aggressive foreign policies from others, risk of preemptive war, antagonistic diplomacy, increase in secrecy and increased susceptibility which would lead to war.

He talks about how all of these dangers were manifest in the policies of German expansionism as well as in the response from the rest of Europe. His stance as a defensive realist is very clear in this article in terms of what he thinks should have happened; the states should have been happy to be defensive knowing their own military capabilities but they all preferred to be offensive which led to WWI. 

He also warns of how damaging a new cult of the offensive would be in a nuclear world. He says that Mutually Assured Destruction is helping maintain balance but any departure from it would be catastrophic.



2 comments:

  1. Mutually assured destruction seems to be working to maintain balance in the world. The examples could be that of US-Russia and India-Pakistan as no war has been fought since these states became nuclear capable but that doesn't mean conflicts, overall, haven't occurred between these states.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Succint summary and I agree with both your title and conclusion. That being said, this is one of your less inspiring pieces. It would have been great to see a tad bit more of engagement, though I recognize that papers were also due this week. That being said, you still provided solid - albeit stiff - analysis.

    ReplyDelete