Talk:Balance of power (international relations)

Confusing wording
"[...] it is generally agreed that bipolar systems as each great power has no choice but to directly confront the other."

Is this an actual sentence? What is it trying to say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.63.26 (talk) 03:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It is corrected, but not obviously sensible and correct.

How can a system be bipolar if the two "poles" are on the same side?

And what does it really mean to "directly confront the other"? Elias (talk) 10:07, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
This article is almost solid jargon, and really really could do with clarification and simplification - its extremely hard word to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.246.64 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Doctrine of Equilibrium
I have modified the doctrine of equilibrium section and improved the structure, although more needs to be done. It especially needs to be cleaned up, as it is copy/pasted directly from other sources see: http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Balance:of:power.htm and http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Balance_of_power

Dynamo152 (talk) 06:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Essays on the Balance of Power
I changed the name of the author of this work. It was Charles Davenant who wrote it not David Humme. The complete title of the book is "A Discourse on Grants and Resumptions and Essays on the Balance of Power" (1701). Hellyot (talk) 19:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Citing Charles Davenant here must be some kind of joke. His observations on the balance of power served the sole purpose of making the case in favour of English participation in the War of Spanish Succession. His "analysis" is quite clearly not an objective historical study and should have no place in an encyclopedia entry as confirming that the balance of power has always existed, a completely ludicrous idea in itself which is far from being confirmed by either historical or international relations scholarship. 149.5.64.141 (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice Job Being Eurocentric
No non-European balance of power examples?—67.180.86.254 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the idea originated in Europe and most of the literature on the subject is from Europe then it is hardly surprising if most of the sources are from Europe or about Europe. Why don't you add some non-European examples?--Britannicus (talk) 10:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress which affects this page. Please participate at Talk:Realism in international relations - Requested move and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 19:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Balance of power
What is balance of power and importance 197.186.61.148 (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing perspectives
Game-theoretical perspectives, elation to MAD Elias (talk) 10:09, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

(Oops.) The perspectives laid out seem to be from political science, and over-simplify the view of states as sovereign and selfish actors, in a way that brings my thoughts to game theory, but without the formalism.

MAD seems highly relevant during the Cold War and post Cold War eras, but is foregone silently.

Walt comes a bit closer to a realistic view of what states are, but the article does not consider how individualist perspectives displacing nationalism can alter the international dynamics, nor how world peace and multilateral cooperation can be beneficial to everyone, if not necessary for continued (co)existence. Elias (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Are there newer sources?
Most of the sources quoted in the article to suggest that the balance of power theory has fundamentally broken down post Cold War (or in the light of post Cold War events) was a wrong theory all along are 1990s or early 2000s. Vultur~enwiki (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)