1. Realism argues that interstate conflict is due to self-interest. It also argues that interstate conflict happens simply because it can. Due to its broadness, any war can be an example. Realism argues that Nazi Germany started war because it can. Economic structuralism argues that interstate conflict is due to states’ economic necessities and expansion. The need for raw materials and labor causes war. For example, Japanese expansion into Southeast Asia was due to natural resources. Liberalism argues the same as economic structuralism, except that liberalism believes that conflict can be overcome by free trade. Liberalism also argues that the conflict can be reduce due to the interdependence of the economies around the world. This can be seen though international alliances and treaties. Constructivism argues that interstate conflict is due to nationalism. Norms, identity, and ideas can cause conflict. An example of this is
…show more content…
WMD makes the world less safe. The US alone has enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world several times over, yet it does not secure its safely from other countries with nuclear weapons. It might prolong how long it takes till a war begins, but with the damage WMD can cause, it might be worse than having more non-nuclear weapon wars during shorter periods of time. Producing WMD also puts a strain on the environment and people that live around the site. If people do not die in a nuclear war, they can die at home by exposure to nuclear sites. In that sense, nuclear weapons do not necessary make the world a safer place. It only makes the world a different kind of place. Then, there is also the risk of the weapons getting into the wrong hands. Every country wants WMD, but they also do not want everyone else to have them. State’s attempt to feel more safe make the world less safe because all states are trying to acquire weapons; it is the security dilemma. And there is also the possibility of these weapon getting into the hands of
WMD makes the world less safe. The US alone has enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world several times over, yet it does not secure its safely from other countries with nuclear weapons. It might prolong how long it takes till a war begins, but with the damage WMD can cause, it might be worse than having more non-nuclear weapon wars during shorter periods of time. Producing WMD also puts a strain on the environment and people that live around the site. If people do not die in a nuclear war, they can die at home by exposure to nuclear sites. In that sense, nuclear weapons do not necessary make the world a safer place. It only makes the world a different kind of place. Then, there is also the risk of the weapons getting into the wrong hands. Every country wants WMD, but they also do not want everyone else to have them. State’s attempt to feel more safe make the world less safe because all states are trying to acquire weapons; it is the security dilemma. And there is also the possibility of these weapon getting into the hands of