World War III
Predicting the Fate
of the World System
The System Level of
Analysis
Polarity and Polarization
The World System
A.
B.
Composed of states, IGOs and
NGOs (see textbook)
Characteristics
1. Number of units – Figure 3.1
a.
b.
Increased Uncertainty
Increased War?
2. Distribution of Power
a.
b.
c.
States vs. Nonstate Actors
Major vs. Minor Powers
Concentration of Power: depends on
measurement
0.9
Sum of cap
CINC Scores as measures of power concentration, 1816-2000
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
abbrev
USA
UKG
RUS
JPN
IND
GMY
GFR
GDR
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1816 1824 1832 1840 1848 1856 1864 1872 1880 1888 1896 1904 1912 1920 1928 1936 1944 1952 1960 1968 1976 1984 1992 2000
FRN
CHN
AUH
The World System
A.
B.
Composed of states, IGOs and
NGOs (see textbook)
Characteristics
1. Number of units – Figure 3.1
a.
b.
Increased Uncertainty
Increased War?
2. Distribution of Power
a.
b.
c.
States vs. Nonstate Actors
Major vs. Minor Powers
Concentration of Power: depends on
measurement
3. Political Organization
a.
Anarchy vs. Hierarchy – Figure 4.2
b. Polarity and Leadership
GREAT POWERS
UNIPOLAR WORLD
MIDDLE POWERS
SMALL POWERS
GREAT POWERS
BIPOLAR WORLD
MIDDLE POWERS
SMALL POWERS
GREAT POWERS
MIDDLE POWERS
SMALL POWERS
MULTIPOLAR WORLD
Is the world unipolar?

Depends on definition: capabilities,
political influence, or leadership?
• What makes a state stronger?
• What gives a state influence?
Economic, Demographic, and Military
Capabilities in the 21st Century
CINC GDP B Pop M
2001
2002
2003
USA
14.9% $10,138
292
PRC
13.4% $5732* 1296
India
6.8%
$2695 1069
Russia
5.4%
$1142
146
Japan
5%
$3261
128
Germany 2.8%
$2172
83
UK
2.3%
$1511
59
France
1.9%
$1554
60
* Some believe China overstates its GDP
Mil $
2002
$399
$47**
$16**
$65
$43
$25
$38
$30
Nukes
2003
10,650
400
40
18,200
0
0
200
350
** Somewhat higher if PPP data used
Is the world unipolar?

Depends on definition: capabilities,
political influence, or leadership?
• What makes a state stronger?
• What gives a state influence?

Most dramatic differences between
US and rest: military spending and
global reach
te
d
Ch
te
s
St
a
in
Ru a
ss
Un
ia
ite Fra
n
d
Ki ce
ng
do
m
Ja
G pan
er
m
an
y
So
ut Italy
h
Ko
re
a
Sa
In
d
ud
i A ia
ra
Au bia
st
ra
li
Tu a
rk
ey
Br
az
il
Sp
a
Ca in
na
da
I
Ne sr
th ae
l
er
la
nd
Ta s
iw
a
M n
ex
ic
G o
re
Si ec
ng e
ap
o
Sw re
No ed
rth en
Ko
re
a
Ira
n
Un
i
Spending
700.00
600.00
500.00
400.00
Spending
300.00
200.00
100.00
0.00
Military Spending: US (FY 2008) vs.
Rest of World
OTHERS
United
Arab
Emirates
Kuwait
Algeria
Vietnam
Denmark
South
Africa
Portugal
Poland
Colombia
Chile
Norway
Belgium
Pakistan
Iran
North
Korea
Sweden
Singapore
Greece
Mexico
Taiwan
Netherlands
Israel
Canada
Spain
Brazil
Turkey
Australia
Saudi Arabia
India
South Korea
Italy
Germany
United States
Japan
United Kingdom
France
Russia
China
c. Alliances and Polarization
3
3
5
3
9
2
5
5
WEAKLY POLARIZED
MULTIPOLAR
WORLD
5
3
9
2
5
5
STRONGLY POLARIZED
MULTIPOLAR
WORLD
A Brief History of
General Wars
Are there patterns of world
war in history?
General Wars in History
A. Habsburgs and Universal Empire 1494-1559
1.
2.
3.
Italian Wars (1494-1515): France vs. Spain (Habsburgs) 
France vs. Holy League (Spain, England, Papal States,
Venice)
French vs. Habsburgs (1521-1529, 1536-1538)
French and Ottomans vs. Habsburgs and England (15421546, 1552-1559)

B. Dutch Independence (1568-1609)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1570s – 1600s: Dutch Revolt vs.
Hapsburgs (Spain)
1585: England Intervenes vs. Hapsburgs
 Spanish Armada (1588)  Stalemate
French Protestants Aid Dutch Rebels
1590s: Spanish intervention in French
religious wars
Spain defeated in France (1590s)
C. Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648)
1.
2.
Protestants vs. Catholics
Stages:
a.
b.
c.
3.
Hapsburgs (Spain, Holy Roman Empire) vs. German
Protestants
Fear of Hapsburg unity –> anti-Hapsburg intervention
(France, England, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden)
Worldwide: Dutch vs. Portuguese and Spanish
Ending = Peace of Westphalia (book)
a.
b.
c.
Hapsburg Power Limited (Territorial States)
French Gains  Collapse of Holy Roman Empire
Dutch naval dominance
D. Anglo-Dutch Wars (1652-1679)
1.
2.
3.
4.
England and France vs. Netherlands
Worldwide, but not very bloody
Dutch colonies lost
Renewal of Anglo-French
competition
E. War of the Grand Alliance
(1688-1696)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
France invades Germany (1688)
League of Augsburg (Spain, Sweden,
German states) opposes France
1689: Grand Alliance formed vs. France
(Austria, England, Netherlands, Spain,
Germans)
“King William’s War” in America
French naval power destroyed, but
France gains in Europe
F. War of the Spanish Succession
(1701-1714)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hapsburg King of Spain dies – After
partition fails, France claims throne
France, Spain, Bavaria, Portugal, Savoy
vs. new Grand Alliance (England,
Holland, Austria, other German states)
“Queen Anne’s War” in America
France agrees never to unite with Spain
English power increases dramatically
G. War of the Austrian Succession
(1739-1748)
1.
2.
Hapsburg Heir to Austria dies 
Succession crisis
German states attack Austria (Saxon,
Bavarian, Silesian Wars)
a. France aids German states  Franco-Austrian
War (1744-1748)
b. Britain, Netherlands, Austria vs. France and
Spain
3.
4.
“King George’s War” in America
France fails in objectives; Hapsburgs win
H. Seven Years’ War (1756-1763)
1.
French-English rivalry meets Austrian-Prussian
competition
a.
b.
c.
d.
2.
3.
France and Native American allies attack English colonies
(1755)
Prussia declares neutrality in French-English war
France responds by aiding Austria against Prussia
Alliances: France, Austria, Russia, Saxony, Sweden,
Spain vs. Prussia, Britain, Hanover
More global than previous wars
a.
b.
French and Indian War in America
War in India and Southeast Asia
a.
b.
c.
d.
France loses Quebec, India and other areas to Britain
Austria loses in Europe
Prussia becomes Great Power
Expenses  American Revolution and renewed FrenchBritish war
Results
I. Wars of the French Revolution
and Napoleon (1792-1815)
1.
War of the First Coalition (1792-1798):
England, Spain, Austria, Prussia,
Sardinia vs. France
a. Reaction to executions, threat of revolution
b. France wins in Continental Europe, but
England keeps fighting
2.
War of the Second Coalition (17981802): England, Russia, Austria, Turkey
vs. France
a. Triggered by French gains in Italy, Germany
b. Rise of Napoleon
3.
French-British War (1803-1805)
3. War of the Third Coalition (18051807)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Britain, Russia, Austria, Sweden vs.
France and Spain
Austria surrenders unconditionally
French-Spanish fleet destroyed
(Trafalgar)
Napoleon gains Poland, most of
Germany. Forced alliance with
Austria.
4. Continued Napoleonic Wars
a.
b.
c.
d.
Peninsular War (1807-1812):
Napoleon vs. Portugal, Britain, and
Spanish guerillas
Austro-French War (1809): Austria
defeated again
Franco-Russian War (1812): Severe
defeat for Napoleon
War of 1812 (to 1814): United States
vs. Britain
5. Allies vs. Napoleon (1812-1815)
a. 1812-1814:
Napoleon
defeated; return
to 1793 status
quo
b. Napoleon’s
Return (1815):
France defeated,
punished
6. Results
a.
b.
British supremacy at sea
Congress of Vienna:
i. Russia, Prussia gain territory
ii. Austria gains in Germany and Italy
iii. “Congress System”
c.
“Eastern Question”
J. Crimean War (1854-1856)
1.
2.
3.
Russia vs. Turkey  Intervention by
France, Britain, Piedmont-Sardinia
Limited War: Crimea and Baltic coasts
Results
a. Russia concedes before war becomes general
b. Concert of Europe
c. Power vacuum  Rise of Prussia (Wars
against Austria and France, German
unification)
K. World War I (1914-1919)
1.
Prewar: Multipolar
but Polarized system
Triple Alliance
(Germany, AustriaHungary, Italy) vs.
Triple Entente
(Britain, Russia,
France)
2. Threat of Hapsburg
collapse after
assassination  A-H
vs. Serbia  Russia vs.
A-H  Germany vs.
Russia  Germany vs.
France  Germany vs.
Britain
3. Europe at War: Central Powers
vs. Allies
4. Results of World War I
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Final collapse of Hapsburgs
End of “Eastern Question”
Destruction of German naval
challenge
Relative decline of Europe
League of Nations
L. World War II (1939-1945)
Germany and Italy vs. Britain and France
(1939-1941)
Japan vs. China (1937-1941)
Soviet and American entry (1941)
1.
2.
3.
Allies (USA, USSR, Britain, France, China)
vs. Axis (Germany, Italy, Japan)
Results
4.
i.
Five victorious “Great Powers” but only two
superpowers
ii. Beginning of Cold War – and “Long Peace”
iii. Nuclear weapons
M. Summary of General Wars
War
Years
Side A
Side B
Various
1494-1559
France
Hapsburgs, England
Dutch Indep.
1568-1609
England, France, Holland
Hapsburg Spain
Thirty Years’
1618-1648
England, France, Holland
Hapsburgs
Anglo-Dutch
1652-1679
England, France
Holland
Grand Alliance
1688-1696
France
Hapsburgs, Britain
Spanish Succ.
1701-1714
France, Spain
Hapsburgs, Britain
Austrian Succ.
1739-1748
France, Spain
Hapsburgs, Britain
Seven Years’
1756-1763
France, Austria, Russia,
Spain
Britain, Prussia
Napoleonic
1792-1815
France, Spain
Britain
Crimean
1854-1856
France, Britain
Russia
World War I
1914-1918
France, Britain, Russia,
USA
Germany, Austria
World War II
1939-1945
France, Britain, USSR,
USA, China
Germany, Italy,
Japan
The War That Wasn’t
Why did the Cold War stay
cold?
The War that Wasn’t: The Cold War
A.
US vs. USSR: The world chooses sides
B. Impact of Nuclear Weapons
1.


Destructiveness of a single
weapon
Example: 100 KT Surface Blast,
Fort Hood Main Gate
100 KT = larger explosion than
WW II atomic bombs but much
less powerful than many 1950s
weapons
15 psi:
Virtually all
dead
5 psi: 50%
dead, 45%
injured
2 psi: 5%
dead, 45%
injured)
1 psi: 25%
injured
Compare: 1 MT Surface Blast
Compare: 20KT Surface Blast
Example: 100 KT Surface: Fallout
54321Possible
hour: Lethal
hours:
Zone
Lethalof
and 50% Lethal
Sickness
2. Effects of full-scale nuclear war
a. Immediate Deaths
b. Fallout
b. Fallout
b. Fallout
c. “Nuclear Winter”
Controversial theory
condemned as
“defeatist” by Cold
Warriors
C. Nuclear Crises
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Iran 1946
Berlin Blockade 1948-1949
Korea 1950-1953
Quemoy-Matsu 1954 and 1958
Berlin Wall 1961
Cuban Missile Crisis 1962
Vietnam 1969
October War 1973
D. Pervasiveness of US-Soviet
Competition
1.
Popular culture
a. US images of Communism
b. Communist Images of the US

“Freedom, American style”
b. Communist Images of the US

“Two worlds two goals.
We are
planning new
life. They are
planning
death.”
b. Communist Images of the US

“This is
freedom?”
b. Communist Images of the US

“Vietnam.
How America
Exports
‘Human
Rights.’”
b. Communist Images of the US

“Stop the
killers!”
b. Communist Images of the US
b. Communist Images of the US

“A Christmas
present for
the people”
b. Communist Images of the US

“What
dangerous
madness!”
b. Communist Images of the US

“Myth – and
reality.”
2. Fallout Shelters and Civil Defense
3. Nuclearphilia


While the public was nuclearphobic,
many elites (scientists, politicians,
military leaders) were nuclearphilic
Need a few examples?
Meet Davy Crockett…the recoilless
rifle with a nuclear warhead
The nuclear landmine (MADM)…
…and a nuclear depth charge
The nuclear arms race
Quotes on nuclear war

“The bombing of Hiroshima was the greatest event in
world history since the birth of Jesus Christ.”
• - Senator Brien "Mr. Atom" McMahon, 1952

“Everybody's going to make it if there are enough
shovels to go around. Dig a hole, cover it with a couple
of doors, and then throw three feet of dirt on top. It's
the dirt that does it!”
• - T.K. Jones, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Strategic
and Nuclear Forces, 1982.

"I do not consider the atomic bomb as such a serious
force. Atomic bombs are intended to frighten people
with weak nerves."
• - Joseph Stalin

"Only the imperialists will perish in an Atomic war."
• - V.Molotov, 1949
E. Termination
1.
2.
3.
Soviets abandon bipolarity: Desire
to cut off allies and reduce military
spending
Soviet Union disintegrates:
Component republics secede under
new political elites generated by
internal reforms
US influence expands: West
Germany absorbs East Germany,
NATO expands into former Soviet
sphere of influence
Theories of World War
System-level explanations
and predictions
Theories of World War
A.
Long Cycle of
Leadership
1. Phases of the cycle
a.
b.
c.
d.
Global War
World Power – Single
dominant state with
global reach
Delegitimation – Other
states recover from the
global war, seek
increased influence
Deconcentration –
Deconcentration
Challengers and the
leader build coalitions
Global War – The new
leader is decided, as
one state emerges with
dominant global reach
Delegitimation
World Power
2. Global Reach

Naval power is key: definition
changes over time
3. Evidence: Cycles of War?

Deaths in major power wars:
Scope of wars
4. Predictions

Global war: 2030
B. Power Transition
1.
Assumptions
a. System Level: World is Hierarchic
DOMINANT POWER
MAJOR POWERS
MIDDLE POWERS
SMALL POWERS
Region Level: Multiple hierarchies
model
b. Dyad Level: Challenger vs.
Dominant Power
Preemptive war
by Dom
War by Challenger
to change SQ
Challenger
P
o
w
e
r
Dominant
Unstable
t
c. State Level: What creates
transitions?
i.
ii.
Existence of challenger: status quo
evaluations
Rise of challenger: development curve
2. Measuring Power
a.
b.
GNP  Ultimately reduces to
population!
Relative Political Capacity – Taxes
3. Evidence
1920-2000
Evidence: Summary
4. Predictions
Predictions (continued)
Predictions (continued)
C. Hegemonic Stability Theory
1.
Assumptions: Primarily Economic
Theory
a. Depressions  Major Wars
b. International Economic Cooperation
Prevents Depressions
Assumptions
c.
Public Goods Theory:
i.
ii.
iii.
World Economy as “Public Good:” Cannot exclude
countries from existing in a prosperous world
Problem: World economic stability costs money
(currency stability, free trade/lost jobs, military
intervention, international law, etc.) – but no one
wants to pay since their contributions won’t make a
difference!
Free Riding: Enjoying benefits of stable world
economy without paying costs
d. Hegemony: When a single state…
i.
ii.
iii.
CAN pay the costs of world economic stability
MUST pay those costs or stability won’t be provided
is WILLING to pay those costs because the benefits
to itself outweigh the costs
e. State-level: “Law of Uneven
Growth”
2. Historical Applicability

Theory doesn’t apply before 18th
century, according to HST
proponents
• Why?
a. Economic Growth is Recent
Growth of World Real GDP per
Person
1,000%
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
–100
11th 12th 13th 14th 15th 16th 17th 18th 19th 20th 21st
Century
b. Increasing Importance of Trade
3. Evidence
Free Trade
a.
i.
Napoleonic Wars: Challenge to British
Hegemony (Continental System) – Consistent
ii. 1815-1840: Increased Protectionism: Corn
Laws, etc – Inconsistent
iii. 1840s-1850s: Rise of free trade in Britain -Consistent
iv. 1860s-1880s: Rise of free trade in Europe, i.e.
Cobden-Chevalier Treaty (1860) -- Consistent
v. Free Trade and US Hegemony
AVERAGE
US TARIFF
YEAR
RATE
---------------1940
36%
1946
25%
1950
13%
1960
12%
1970
10%
1975
6%
1984
5%
AVERAGE
WORLD
TARIFF
---------40%
-25%
17%
13%
-5%
b. Economics and War
Europe's GNP growth rate, 1856-1913
12.0
10.0
8.0
Five-year moving average
6.0
4.0
2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0
-10.0
1906
1896
1886
1876
1866
-2.0
1856
0.0
c. US Hegemonic Decline?
A New World Order?
Will democracy, trade, and
the UN save us?
Trends toward world peace


Kantian Peace (More on this later):
Democracy, Interdependence, IGOs
 trend toward world peace
All data presented begins in 1816
Average IGO Memberships / State,
Since 1816
IGO Membership Normalized by # States, 1815-1910
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
% States Democratic Since
Percentage
Percentage
of all countries
of all countries
rated asrated
democratic
as democratic
(with Polity
(withIIIPolity
scoreIII score
above 6 above
out1816
of 610),
out1800-1913
of 10), 1800-1913
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
World Trade Dependence
(Trade/GDP) Since 1816
Per Capita GDP By Region
Since 1816
"International finance has become so
interdependent and so interwoven with
trade and industry that ... political and
military power can in reality do
nothing.... These little recognized facts,
mainly the outcome of purely modern
conditions (rapidity of communication
creating a greater complexity and
delicacy of the credit system), have
rendered the problems of modern
international politics profoundly and
essentially different from the ancient.“ –
Norman Angell
"International finance has become so
interdependent and so interwoven with
trade and industry that ... political and
military power can in reality do
nothing.... These little recognized facts,
mainly the outcome of purely modern
conditions (rapidity of communication
creating a greater complexity and
delicacy of the credit system), have
rendered the problems of modern
international politics profoundly and
essentially different from the ancient.“ –
Norman Angell, 1910
Average IGO Memberships / State
1816 - 1910
IGO Membership Normalized by # States, 1815-1910
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
% States Democratic
Percentage
Percentage
of all countries
of all countries
rated asrated
democratic
as democratic
(with Polity
(withIIIPolity
scoreIII score
1816
- 1800-1913
1913
above
6 above
out of 610),
out
of
10), 1800-1913
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
% States Democratic
1816 - 1992
World Trade Dependence
1816 - 1913
World Trade Dependence
1816 - 2000
Interdependence?

Exports as % of GDP
• 1913: 13%
• 1992: 14%

FDI as % of GDP
• 1914: 11%
• 1993: 11%

British-German trade was high
• Lloyd’s insured Germany’s ships!
Per Capita GDP By Region
1820 - 1913
Per Capita GDP By Region
1820 - 2000