Session 12: Why Offensive Realism make sense

        Although offensive realists holds a higher degree of pessimism, but their pessimistic view about international arena and their predictions concerning a system without an overarching power seems to hold some truth. Their predictions about states ever trying to be on offensive forefront seems true, but it not necessarily means that this system will eventually be a victim of another great war. States are of course more concerned about their security now a days, with the ever growing development in the field of science and increasing number of military developments, there is of course an increased likelihood to be worried as the hostile entity can use any offensive mean from the so diverse range it has.

        This is the case in which there is a cause of an action, an action of increasing military capabilities but that action will be most unlikely to bear any unwanted consequence, in this particular context, war.

        Another explanation of why stronger states tend to be hegemonic in nature is lack of a strong overarching power, and this absence of that power creates a power vacuum which world powers tend to fill and it is clearly manifested in the cold war of how the struggle of domination shape the politics of world and it also explain offensive realism another stance that offensive tactics ensure your safety in a competitive environment. If for instance, let's consider the scenario USSR and USA would never go to war but will it put a halt to their military ambitions? Of course not. A country's policy of not enhancing its military arsenal in the presence of a competitor will be judged as foolish.

        A famous quote regarding state's foreign policy is " A state has interest, not friends" and this in a nutshell, is the offensive realist stance. States will always look to maximize it's power in any way possible and offensive realists sees an enhances military capability as an optimal solution of it coupled with the factors of an anarchic society.