Write two reflection response in Political science at least 200 words. Respond to the postings of a least two other students, no later than midnight on Sunday, April 30. What are the strengths and shortcomings of the other students' arguments? How? Q : Which system is better for managing global affairs, collective security or the balance of power? Classmate's answer A : balance of power. I believe it. A global affair is an event or a sequence of events that show the relationship between states, their economies, and societies. It is a sensitive topic that needs to be tackled and analyzed by professionals. The aim of studying global affairs is to prepare interdisciplinary critical thinkers on the process of globalization and international connectedness. Collective security is acceptance of the fact that security for one, is for all and therefore committing to a collective responsibility to any threats and breaches of the peace. It covers an entire region, even to the global extent (Orakhelashvili, 2011). The balance of power is the stability between competing forces. In this case, security is attained by distributing military, so that a state or region, is not strong enough to dominate others. Therefore, both systems keep the relationship between states, economies, and societies in check and are effective. However, in managing the global affairs, a balance of power is the ultimate and very effective and efficient system. As stated earlier, a balance of power ensures that a country does not feel all powerful over a state it interacts with, for instance through trade. This is because it can result to overtaking of boundaries of other states because they believe they have the power to do so. For instance, Russia wanted to reclaim the Ukraine, to become a region within its borders. The world has become interconnected due to the current technology, that it is even termed as a global village. A balance of power ensures that each and every of the states on the surface of the earth has a “voice.” This is mainly to safeguard the underdeveloped countries in trade deals and international conferences, protecting them from unfair treatment because of their weak economies. In a nut shell, it is that it hinders one sided decision making concerning issues such as military incursions, anti-dumping duties, and business practices. For instance, in the Kyoto protocol that checked on the carbon dioxide emissions that was approved in the United States of America. A balance of power is also dynamic in nature, rather, it is flexible (Paul, Wirtz, & Fortmann, 2004). In that, it can accommodate the continuous adjustments and readjustments to international relations, without any risk of war. Also, it ensures the preservation of weak states since it favors the continued existence of all states. Hence, all states feel secure about its security. This system also discourages war. Any nation knows that an attempt to become unduly powerful will invoke a war from the other.

1. Write two reflection response in Political science at least 200
words.
Respond to the postings of a least two other students, no later
than midnight on Sunday, April 30. What are the strengths and
shortcomings of the other students' arguments? How?
Q : Which system is better for managing global affairs,
collective security or the balance of power?
Classmate's answer A : balance of power.
I believe it. A global affair is an event or a sequence of events
that show the relationship between states, their economies, and
societies. It is a sensitive topic that needs to be tackled and
analyzed by professionals. The aim of studying global affairs is
to prepare interdisciplinary critical thinkers on the process of
globalization and international connectedness. Collective
security is acceptance of the fact that security for one, is for all
and therefore committing to a collective responsibility to any
threats and breaches of the peace. It covers an entire region,
even to the global extent (Orakhelashvili, 2011). The balance of
power is the stability between competing forces. In this case,
security is attained by distributing military, so that a state or
region, is not strong enough to dominate others. Therefore, both
systems keep the relationship between states, economies, and
societies in check and are effective. However, in managing the
global affairs, a balance of power is the ultimate and very
effective and efficient system.
As stated earlier, a balance of power ensures that a country does
not feel all powerful over a state it interacts with, for instance

2. through trade. This is because it can result to overtaking of
boundaries of other states because they believe they have the
power to do so. For instance, Russia wanted to reclaim the
Ukraine, to become a region within its borders. The world has
become interconnected due to the current technology, that it is
even termed as a global village. A balance of power ensures that
each and every of the states on the surface of the earth has a
“voice.” This is mainly to safeguard the underdeveloped
countries in trade deals and international conferences,
protecting them from unfair treatment because of their weak
economies. In a nut shell, it is that it hinders one sided decision
making concerning issues such as military incursions, anti-
dumping duties, and business practices. For instance, in the
Kyoto protocol that checked on the carbon dioxide emissions
that was approved in the United States of America.
A balance of power is also dynamic in nature, rather, it is
flexible (Paul, Wirtz, & Fortmann, 2004). In that, it can
accommodate the continuous adjustments and readjustments to
international relations, without any risk of war. Also, it ensures
the preservation of weak states since it favors the continued
existence of all states. Hence, all states feel secure about its
security. This system also discourages war. Any nation knows
that an attempt to become unduly powerful will invoke a war
from the other nations. Therefore, it is a source of peace and
order in international relations. It was successively used to
prevent war from 1815-1914.
The balance of power system has been practiced since the
ancient times, and in different regions of the world. For
instance, in the 19th century, the French Emperor Napoleon,
tried to conquer large areas in Europe but he met with
opposition from a coalition of European states including
Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia. The coalition won, and
Napoleon defeated in 1815, at the battle of Waterloo. Currently,
a balance of power is still exercised. For example, in 2003,
Korea announced it was also manufacturing nuclear weapons so

3. as to be at par with the United States. However, the balance of
power keeps diminishing with time due to the development of
technology, globalization, internet and weapons of mass
destruction. These aspects have made it possible for
insignificant groups and small states have significant power.
Also, they render military power and protections bit useless.
In conclusion, it is clear that the balance of power checks that
the power of a state, is the power of the states. This system
protected and still protects the global affairs since 500 years
ago. It is, therefore, effective and efficient.
My reply to a friend discussion :
Classmate's answer B : balance of power.
In the case of managing global affairs, context matters. Hence,
both collective security and balance of power reflect requisite
yet not collectively exhaustive models for achieving wanted
results. We need to ask ourselves, what is the objective of
managing global affairs? Typically, important outcomes include
increased security, economic collaboration, and overall a
shaping of interests by the parties to achieve such an outcome.
A few examples would illustrate my argument. Let us start with
taking a regional view at modern day Scandinavia. When the
proper institutions within Sweden, Denmark or Norway are
interested in managing their global affairs as they relate to each
other, collective security logic typically make tremendous
sense. The countries share not only a history together, but also
common values - they are all democracies with no pronounced
intention to acquire strategic resources from one another
through means of power. Therefore, a collaborative mindset as
achieved through the collective security methods would make
more sense. Simply stated, alignment of value, along with the
existence of proper institutions would serve adopting this route.
Is this always the case? Of course not. During the Cold War,

4. the balance of power theory seemed appropriate. The United
States was looking to spread democracy and the Soviet Union
was looking to spread communism. Both countries were in a
competitive race over resources. Yet, the countries, did not
engage in a typical “War,” the mutually assured destruction
(MAD) positioning of both powers (especially on the nuclear
side), provided a balance of power, that saved bloodshed.
Finally, one may also observe that both collective security and
balance of power may have a concurrent role in the same
situations -- for example, Sweden may indeed have some
aspects that require balance of power with neighbors (say, over
control of island), and Russia and the US did in fact care about
collective security (the creation of IIASA a cooperative institute
in the cold war serves as a striking, yet unique example). Both
methods serve a purpose in understanding and managing global
affairs, and their role is limited.
My reply to a friend discussion :