Power Transition Theory

[Farnan]

What are your opinions of the Power Transition Theory?

Basically the theory is a Realist theory of world politics. According to it Major Power War occurs when a nation dissatisfied with the current world system reaches power parity with the dominant world power. According to PTT the best way to prevent major power war is the existence of a Monopolar war. They use this theory to explain the Major Power peace since 1953 (the Soviet Union didn't posses power parity with the US during the entire Cold War) and to explain why Major Power war occured earlier. This is a very basic explanation.

I agree with it myself as the best explanation of why Major Power war happens, far better than the Balance of Power theory that rules many Realists.

[wilting]

What are your opinions of the Power Transition Theory?

I'm not familiar with it but...

Basically the theory is a Realist theory of world politics. According to it Major Power War occurs when a nation dissatisfied with the current world system reaches power parity with the dominant world power.

Reasonable enough.

According to PTT the best way to prevent major power war is the existence of a Monopolar war.

I'm assuming you mean Monopolar world. Its' A way, I'd be skeptical if its the best way. I'd be more inclined to say that a monopolar system is stable, and an multipolar system is unstable, but no monopolar system will last forever; by creating a monopolar system you open up the road for its failure to lead to a chaotic multipolar system.

They use this theory to explain the Major Power peace since 1953 (the Soviet Union didn't posses power parity with the US during the entire Cold War)

Questionable. But I'm not an expert on the Cold War.

and to explain why Major Power war occured earlier. This is a very basic explanation.

I'd have to read in detail, but as I noted earlier this sounds reasonable enough.

I agree with it myself as the best explanation of why Major Power war happens, far better than the Balance of Power theory that rules many Realists.

No one theory has all the answers, but not all theories are created equal either.

[Farnan]

I'm assuming you mean Monopolar world. Its' A way, I'd be skeptical if its the best way. I'd be more inclined to say that a monopolar system is stable, and an multipolar system is unstable, but no monopolar system will last forever; by creating a monopolar system you open up the road for its failure to lead to a chaotic multipolar system.

Yes, I meant world, sorry for the mistake.

The issue is that a multipolar world has war more often than a monopolar war due to relative parity between the nations. Even the famed "Peace of Europe" after the Napoleonic Wars only lasted 35 years and that is with a multipolar world. However the monopolar world has lasted 55 years without a major power war.

Questionable. But I'm not an expert on the Cold War.

Uses GDP as main qualitative study.

[André Masséna]

I was first introduced to this a year or two ago, and it's pretty much dead on. A good reason why we should not fear China. They aren't dissatisfied with the status quo....why would they want to change it?

[Lord Consul]

PTT is not an exclusively Realist construct. Both Wallerstein and Arrighi, Marxist writers, incorporated a very similar "polarity shift transition" into their "World System/Sistema-Mundi" theory/paradigm.

However, before getting into the theory, I'd like to point something out:

(the Soviet Union didn't posses power parity with the US during the entire Cold War)

As Reagan, Kissinger and Brzezinsk themselves later admitted (there was a whole TIME cover story dedicated to it in 1981), after the mid-1960s, the Soviets were superior in every single military aspect except technological sophistication and naval capability. They had more troops, more nukes, more tanks, more missiles a more rigid command structure.

In fact, when TIME made both Andropov and Reagan men of the year in 1981, the IR specialists and advisers consulted by the magazine in the cover story were clear: America would undoubtedly be outnumbered, outgunned and defeated in a confrontation with Warsaw Pact forces in Europe if America did not use nuclear weapons.

Uses GDP as main qualitative study.

Bear in mind the Soviet Union had no "GDP tables". The only publicly divulged economic data about the Soviet Union during the cold war were GNP measurements. And they were legendarily unreliable, since the SU was a planned economy and they could pump up their military power with "structural planning".

---

As for the PTT, I think Major Power wars did not occur after 1953 due to increased interdependence among many powerful actors, America's swift cooptation of Western Europe after the war and more importantly, due to the proliferation of nuclear weponry. All major powers nowadays are nuclear powers and they all know that in a nuclear confrontation there can be no victors.

The nuclear age has superseded the reality explained by the PTT, since there can be no revisionist hegemonic power after a nuclear holocaust.

[Farnan]

As Reagan, Kissinger and Brzezinsk themselves later admitted (there was a whole TIME cover story dedicated to it in 1981), after the mid-1960s, the Soviets were superior in every single military aspect except technological sophistication and naval capability. They had more troops, more nukes, more tanks, more missiles a more rigid command structure.

In fact, when TIME made both Andropov and Reagan men of the year in the 1981, the IR specialists advisors consulted by the magazine in the cover story were clear: America would undoubtedly be outnumbered, outgunned and defeated in a confrontation with Warsaw Pact forces in Europe if America did not use nuclear weapons.

However, post Cold War reviews of the strength of the USSR revealed that the Soviets were good at hiding their own weaknesses to a good degree and were able to feed exaggerated intel to the West making the West believe they were stronger than they were. According to evidence in the West that was true, however post-war intel proved it differently. Hence the value of perception in my opinion.

Bear in mind the Soviet Union had no "GDP tables". The only publicly divulged economic data about the Soviet Union during the cold war were GNP measurements. And they were legendarily unreliable, since the SU was a planned economy and they could pump up their military power with "structural planning".

---

As for the PTT, I think Major Power wars did not occur after 1953 due to increased interdependence among many powerful actors, America's swift cooptation of Western Europe after the war and more importantly, due to the proliferation of nuclear weponry. All major powers nowadays are nuclear powers and they all know that in a nuclear confrontation there can be no victors.

The nuclear age has superseded the reality explained by the PTT, since there can be no revisionist hegemonic power after a nuclear holocaust.

All of what you said has been addressed by Dr. Douglas Lemke's work: "The Continuation of History: Power Transition Theory and the End of the Cold War" featured in the Journal of Peace Studies February of 1997.

[Lord Consul]

Wow, my last post was full of concordance errors and typos ("advisors"). Had to edit it.

However, post Cold War reviews of the strength of the USSR revealed that the Soviets were good at hiding their own weaknesses to a good degree and were able to feed exaggerated intel to the West making the West believe they were stronger than they were. According to evidence in the West that was true, however post-war intel proved it differently. Hence the value of perception in my opinion.

You're right, to a certain extent. However, we must take into account the undeniable fact that, as Morgenthau repeatedly stated, it's not power itself that matters in the international system, but the perception of power and polarity among the core units of the said system.

The Soviets could have been weaker, but the West regarded them as stronger and planned according to that perception. There's no such thing as Friedman's 'informational perfection' in IR, every State has a different perception of itself and the others - perceptions that are not always true to reality.

All of what you said has been addressed by Dr. Douglas Lemke's work: "The Continuation of History: Power Transition Theory and the End of the Cold War" featured in the Journal of Peace Studies February of 1997.

I'm a fan of the JPS, I'll definitively check it out.

[Strattios]

This is incorrect. While the two major powers themselves don't fight each other, there is a large number of proxy wars. When two super powers exist (or more), then there is much greater danger. Not only are they more willing to supply wars to their benefit (see wars like Vietnam, Korea, USSR invasion of Afghanistan, Greece, the various wars in South America and the Middle East, etc.), there is also the chance that one side may either get desperate or get some loon into power that wants to directly attack the other side (such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the USSR threatening to send troops to fight Israel in the late sixties). Thankfully things never went hot, but if they had that would have been the end of it.

[Farnan]

You're right, to a certain extent. However, we must take into account the undeniable fact that, as Morgenthau repeatedly stated, it's not power itself that matters in the international system, but the perception of power and polarity among the core units of the said system.

The Soviets could have been weaker, but the West regarded them as stronger and planned according to that perception. There's no such thing as Friedman's 'informational perfection' in IR, every State has a different perception of itself and the others - perceptions that are not always true to reality.

And I will agree on the importance of perception. The US perceived itself as weaker than the USSR and the USSR knew it was weaker than the West.

Dr. Lemke is actually going to be my professor in my Independent Studies class next year so if you have any questions I can ask him.

This is incorrect. While the two major powers themselves don't fight each other, there is a large number of proxy wars. When two super powers exist (or more), then there is much greater danger. Not only are they more willing to supply wars to their benefit (see wars like Vietnam, Korea, USSR invasion of Afghanistan, Greece, the various wars in South America and the Middle East, etc.), there is also the chance that one side may either get desperate or get some loon into power that wants to directly attack the other side (such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the USSR threatening to send troops to fight Israel in the late sixties). Thankfully things never went hot, but if they had that would have been the end of it.

Realist political theories are mostly concerned with Major Power war, non-Major power war is more difficult to talk about and subject to different theories.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

This is incorrect. While the two major powers themselves don't fight each other, there is a large number of proxy wars. When two super powers exist (or more), then there is much greater danger. Not only are they more willing to supply wars to their benefit (see wars like Vietnam, Korea, USSR invasion of Afghanistan, Greece, the various wars in South America and the Middle East, etc.), there is also the chance that one side may either get desperate or get some loon into power that wants to directly attack the other side (such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the USSR threatening to send troops to fight Israel in the late sixties). Thankfully things never went hot, but if they had that would have been the end of it.

Wrong, proxy wars are unique to the cold war because of MAD, at other times of multipolar worlds conflict often built up (as often did during the cold war) but resulted in direct conflict, such as in pre-WWI Europe, and the interbellum.