International Relations

Question 1

Realists point out that the Prisoner’s Dilemma explains why states avoid working together when doing so could lead to mutual benefit. States act independently out of fear of betrayal, although according to Prisoner’s Dilemma predictions, coordination would maximize benefits. Furthermore, realists argue that disarming nuclear weapons would benefit both India and Pakistan by saving resources and lowering the likelihood of a nuclear conflict: International Relations.

However, Cooperation between the two nations is hindered by the significant lack of trust between them. This is because voluntary disarmament leaves both states vulnerable to possible threats in case the opponent is militarily- equipped. Consequently, India and Pakistan are still building up their nuclear weapons because disarmament would make them feel helpless against one another, which would result in dangerous weapons rivalry.

Subsequently, the Prisoner’s Dilemma tool used by realist theorists proves efficient because it represents the main strategic methods alongside distrust found during international relations (Tobin, n.d). The Cold War period caused an arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union because they distrusted each other, even though disarmament would have brought about clear advantages. Further, the political situations in Middle Eastern and East Asian territories uphold realist theory since security demands accompany mistrust among nations.

Question 2

When states divide their power to keep any state or alliance from seizing authority, a peaceful and stable system is formed. This is referred to as the balance of power. Balance of power theories from the previous century meets opposition in the modern world from two sources: globalization forces and active terror groups and cyber threats. Power distribution between states becomes more complicated because of rising global network connectivity.

Several changes need to occur to redefine the concept, including issues related to international security from Non-State Actors being factored into security analysis (Clarke & Knake, 2019), multilateralism, which emphasizes global cooperation and governance, incorporating economic and technological dimensions and flexibility that needs to be incorporated into power dynamics because it demonstrates China’s rise as a global power, which Allison (2017) identified. Undeniably, the traditional balance of power concept faces potential obsolescence if redefinition does not occur yet its fundamental principle to prevent domination continues to be significant.

References

Allison, G. (2017). Destined for War: Can America and China Escape Thucydides’s Trap? Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. https://www.hks.harvard.edu/publications/destined-war-can-america-and-china-escape-thucydidess-trap

Clarke, R. A., & Knake, R. K. (2019). The Fifth Domain: Defending Our Country, Our Companies, and Ourselves in the Age of Cyber Threats. Penguin Press.

Tobin, J. (n.d.-a). The prisoner’s dilemma. University of Michigan Heritage Project. https://heritage.umich.edu/stories/the-prisoners-dilemma/

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Question 1

How do realists use the Prisoner’s Dilemma to explain the unwillingness of countries to cooperate despite possible gains from cooperation (e.g., avoid a costly arms race)? Explain how realists use the Prisoner’s Dilemma to explain an Indian-Pakistani nuclear arms race (see Figure 2.8). Are you persuaded by the use of Prisoner’s Dilemma by realists? Be sure to support your decision with logical argumentation and empirical evidence

International Relations

Question 2

The concept of balance of power is fundamental in international relations. What does it mean? How meaningful can it be in the twenty-first century, given the impact of globalization and modern warfare in which one’s opponents may not be attached to any particular state?

Is it possible that it requires redefinition? If so, what should it mean? If not, why not?