continent’s history, with France, Germany, the UK, and so forth, again viewing each other as potential aggressors. The reason, they argued, was that in the absence of a common enemy the glue that previously bound together the Western security alliance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was gone.
NATO, of course, has not broken up, indeed its membership and scope of operations has expanded significantly, and has developed into what some people see as a good example of a security community (discussed shortly). For realists, however, the break-up of NATO remains a matter of time and at some point Europe will revert to type, as directed by the dictates of the logic of international anarchy.
As such, realists suggest that the perpetual problem of the security dilemma means that inter-state war remains an inherent possibility. Despite this, though, they also suggest that several mechanisms exist enabling states to limit the likelihood of war occurring in specific contexts. The first is through ensuring that the distribution of power is balanced across the international system. This can be done through creating alliances and ad hoc coalitions which balance the power of competing states and nullify the presumed benefits of military action. Second, realists suggest order can also be ensured through the emergence of a hegemonic power, a state with such a preponderance of power that it can set and police the rules of the system. In the contemporary period the United States has come closest to performing this role, although with the emergence of Brazil, Russia, India, and China (see Box 2 ) its ability to do so effectively is being undermined. A third way states may avoid war, though, is through acquiring a nuclear deterrent and threatening potential adversaries with devastation should they be foolish enough to attack. Indeed, some realists even favour the more general proliferation of nuclear weapons, believing that widespread ownership may have a stabilizing effect on international relations. For instance, some analysts suggest that the proliferation of nuclear weapons to India and Pakistan has actually moderated their relationship by raising the costs of all out war to unacceptable levels. Indeed, this prospect of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is often suggested as the primary reason for the Cold War remaining cold, with nuclear weapons therefore viewed as a fundamental source of both international stability and national security. As critics note, though, in actuality there were several occasions during the Cold War—most notably the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962)—when the world came perilously close to nuclear war. For them, relying on nuclear weapons as the foundation of international security is therefore an unacceptably risky strategy.
----
Box 2 Rising China and International Security
China’s remarkable rise over the last two decades has raised significant questions for international security. Seen through a realist prism China’s enhanced economic, military, and cultural power marks the end of America’s unparalleled hegemonic global position after the end of the Cold War. Indeed, China is increasingly being viewed as a contending pole of attraction offering an alternative to the political and economic governance model of the West. The global balance of power is shifting with this raising the question of whether the future will be characterized by conflict or cooperation between the USA and China.
For some realists the signals are alarming. As economic and military power shifts conflicts are to be expected as interests and capabilities begin to collide. And points of tension between the USA and China are easily identified. These include disagreements over the status of Taiwan, concern over the modernization of China’s military forces, divergent views on human rights, and competition over access to global resources. These tensions have been accompanied by various crises, among others precipitated