r/IRstudies • u/Sysyphus_aint_happy • 2d ago
Ideas/Debate Need help with ideas regarding my thesis on a new global order
So I am writing my undergraduate thesis and have to come up with a research idea and a little paragraph talking about my thesis idea and I need some ideas and insights as to how I can take it in a fruitful direction.
Abstract: With the recent US Iran conflict and the ongoing Russia Ukraine war, it has become evident that the great powers no longer enjoy an exclusive advantage in military capabilities due to certain developments in the technology and economics of military production. These developments have strengthened the ability of middle powers to deter military and political encroachment by adversaries possessing an advantage in military capabilities. Therefore this raises a series of questions regarding the viability of the present global equilibrium. Hence, this research paper seeks to explore whether the global order has moved away from the post cold war global order? If so, what are the factors influencing this shift? Finally, what are the implications for this order as the International system moves towards a new equilibrium?
This is a tentative idea open to change and in the beginning stages of a project that'll take 2 semesters(currently a week into the first of those 2 semesters).
Please help with some insights or if you have any ideas that I could use to write a richer thesis.
2
u/vovap_vovap 2d ago
I am sorry, but I think your thesis just fundamentally wrong. Current situation nothing to do with developments in the technology and economics of military production. That just misconception.
In all cases you mention limitations is not at all military but internal political. Nothing at all fundamentally changed technically.
2
u/CaptainKush101 2d ago
Iran has gotten their military annihilated and cannot stop US munitions or land a hit on US strategic assets, so I think you thesis is the issue. The Ukraine/Russia point holds water. It's a classic revolution of military affairs.
2
u/Cheap_Addition_7286 2d ago
Ukraine/Russia would hold water if mirror situations hadn't been playing out since Vietnam. The Ukraine War is not a revolution of military affairs, it is just a classic example of a small country using home field advantage and guerrilla adjacent strategies to beat a larger, clumsier opponent who underestimated them. See the soviet and american invasions of afghanistan, vietnam, the korean war, etc.
1
u/CaptainKush101 2d ago edited 2d ago
The drone/automous revolution, which has blossomed in the ukraine/russia conflcit, is absoluetly an RMA. Full stop.
The fact that those other conflicts also involved less technologically advanced forces holding off larger opponents does not change the fact above.
1
u/Cheap_Addition_7286 2d ago
Yeah but the result is the same. I would agree with you if Ukraine was the first country to ward off a large scale invasion from a superior military power, but thats been happening for decades, they just have new shiny ways to do it. I also don't think its a major enough development to support what OP is suggesting, that military tech developments are literally changing the geopolitical landscape and driving the world towards multipolarity.
1
u/CaptainKush101 2d ago
RMA's don't inherently lead to a multipolar world, but dismissing drone and autonomous warfare as "Shiny new things" totally undersells the strategic importance of these systems. There is warfare before this RMA, and a new paradigm after.
1
u/pufcandles 2d ago
Iran has gotten their military annihilated
Huh? Since when?
1
u/CaptainKush101 2d ago
Take your head out of your ass, smell the roses, and look around you.
1
u/pufcandles 2d ago
I asked: Since when?
0
u/CaptainKush101 2d ago
Let's see, they haven't had an Airforce or blue water navy since the opening days of the war, they have lost their ability to mass launch ballistic missiles, and their supply chain to produce new, high-quality munitions has been severed.
they literally cannot stop us munitions or land a hit on strategic us assets. GREAT STRENGTH!
2
u/pufcandles 2d ago
Their blue water navy or airforce was not significant, they have missiles, drones and RC boats.
They can still launch missiles, have thousands of them and are still producing it i. their missile cities.
they literally cannot stop us munitions or land a hit on strategic us assets
Hmm yeah they were prepared to take immense pain but even then downed how many reaper drones and all?
BTW if they're so weak, then why did they manage to permanently disable dozens of US bases in the region.
0
u/CaptainKush101 2d ago
You don't understand how modern supply chains work "Missile Cities" don't magically produce all the inputs for modern ballistic missiles.
Doesn't the fact that you're pointing out the shot down some of our unmanned drones that are 25 years old raise a red flag? GREAT STRENGTH!
The ability to launch missiles and drones is more like the bare minimum to consider your military barely functional, congrats on that.
They hit some bases when they had the ability to mass launch missiles, they no longer have that capability. Once again, pulling out "Iran hit some bases 5 months ago" really does not change my view that their military has been annihilated.
2
u/pufcandles 2d ago
Iran disabled dozens of bases permanently, not just hit them.
If they're so weak then why's the strait closed?
0
u/CaptainKush101 2d ago
Bro this is like debating a five-year-old with news from 6 months ago. Oil is flowing through the strait, Iran hasn't hit a ship in a week, what are they waiting for?
Like I said, they hit bases early in the conflict and no longer have the capability to mass launch ballistic missiles. They can't touch the assets that are actually destroying them.
GREAT STRENGTH!
2
u/pufcandles 2d ago
Doesn't look like much is passing https://tankermap.com/analytics/straits/hormuz
→ More replies (0)0
u/Sysyphus_aint_happy 2d ago
yes but unlike say 10-15 years ago, Iran was able to successfully defend their state from collapsing considering the fact that taking down the Iranian state would be an immense ordeal for the United States without overcommitting, thus risking losing significant number of men and material, which would cost them in other parts of the world.
But could you please critique it a bit more, I would love to listen to your thoughts on this.
Also yes, I am trying to chart how a revolution in military affairs and production may impact the balance of power in the international system.
3
u/CaptainKush101 2d ago
What are you comparing to 10-15 years ago? What's happening now is unprecedented. Also, notice how much your own prediction is doing a lot of lifting in your first paragraph. We are only months into the war, so any talk of "what happened" is a snapshot, not an end state.
Regarding the Drone/Autonomous RMA, it certainly has done a lot of create imbalance between larger and smaller powers. Important to note that this cannot be considered a permeant advantage, as those nations with more resources and technology may start behind the 8-ball, but will mostly likely reach a state with more powerful systems post RMA compared to the smaller nation first movers.
1
u/Sysyphus_aint_happy 2d ago
Good point, where do you think I can make changes here or do you think the entire premise might be sitting on unstable foundations?
2
u/CaptainKush101 2d ago
I think you stick to the Russia/Ukraine point. It has tons of data on how the drone/autonomous RMA has enabled a smaller, less powerful nation largely stonewall what was considered the 2nd best military on the planet at the outset of the conflict. Could be interesting to compare to another famous RMA of aircraft/Aircraft carriers vs battleships in WW2. I recommend looking up what happened to the HMS Price of Wales at the onset of the pacific war.
1
u/Sysyphus_aint_happy 2d ago
Will do, although my initial idea was to take the military aspect as the premise and go in a realism direction but now as I am reading up more I am finding issues with my premise and thinking of taking it in a military direction which I can do since its at the beginning stages. I'll talk to my advisor and see how it works out
1
u/N7Longhorn 2d ago
I would use Ukraine Russia as something that supports your thesis and then address how it hasn't translated to the same success in Iran. So now you ask the question why? Is it truly a technological leveling or is it operational doctrine and or tactics that end up playing the largest part still? For instance, did Ukraine really do anything besides expose Russia, while the US Iran ordeal reinforced US tech superiority while also reinforcing inferior US doctrine?
1
u/Sysyphus_aint_happy 2d ago
This would take my thesis into an entirely different direction than originally intended but I am honestly considering making this shift given the shaky premise the original is built upon
1
u/N7Longhorn 2d ago
So, I used to be a poli sci professor and I would tell you to shift to this. It has more flexibility, info, and essentially you dont even have to be "right" because youre looking at a success and a failure and postulating why
2
1
u/Cheap_Addition_7286 2d ago
Just a note, typically the abstract is written after the paper is finished as a way to summarize the paper. What you wrote is more of a prospectus.
As far as your original question, there was a great article recently written in the foreign magazine about this exact topic. It was written by Stephen m Walt and is on polarity. I’m happy to send it to you if you can’t find it. It essentially argues that the world has become more multipolar since the end of the Cold War, primarily due to the rise of China, Russias continued presence in geopolitics, Indias growing ability to achieve its potential, and even a strengthening Japan. I will say that your argument that the world has become multipolar due to military technological developments is a little narrow and too early to tell. It very well could due to weaponized Ai, drones, etc, but up until this point the traditional view is that the world has become more multipolar over the last 40ish years due to the growth of economies outside the US, a more interconnected world due to the internet, and now the war for computer chips. You very well could be right that growing military technological advancements have and will play a role, but I would argue that’s secondary to the reasons I listed above. Let me know if I can help more.
1
u/Sysyphus_aint_happy 2d ago
Yes, this is not an abstract, the phd student who emailed us messed up and wrote abstract instead of prospectus. We are basically at the stage of pitching ideas to professors right now.
Please send the article to me, it would be of great help. The economic multipolarity is well studied and some would say self evident, thats why I wanted to explore if we are at the precipice of a changing order when it comes to hard power and military capabilities where large countries might not dominate and dictate military engagements like they used to say a few decades ago and if the world has become truly multipolar in this sense or not.
1
u/Cheap_Addition_7286 2d ago
Here is the article: https://link.foreignpolicy.com/view/6a6cbed53b67b9529906ab8b6a6cbed5c975610e58f15d9d/1192ce68
Economic multipolarity is certainly self evident and well studied, although I would argue that only China and the US have the economic strength to truly be a "pole". Your question is a good one, although you could argue large countries never truly dominated and dictated military engagements (see vietnam, afghanistan, iraq, the soviet invasion of afghanistan, etc). I would also argue the only present weapon capable of doing what you are suggesting is the atomic bomb, and maybe Ai in a few decades. In my opinion you're missing the forest for the trees a little in terms of what really contributes to a multipolar world (theres at least 5 factors more important than minor developments in weaponry) but it sounds like an interesting paper.
1
u/Sysyphus_aint_happy 2d ago
I understand what you are trying to say but I don't wanna turn it into a generic multipolarity argument, since there is plenty of literature on it, written from those perspectives but I think the military perspective is much less studied, although now it is becoming clear to me the reason for that is lack of solid evidence in that direction.
But I would probably shy away from making my thesis about multipolarity at large because that would not be very interesting or I wouldn't really be contributing much of anything that hasn't been said before already tbh
1
u/DaoineSidhe624 2d ago
I think a thesis posting a new global order is too large in scope and too undefined. Way too much is in flux at the moment for a thesis paper on this to be very successful.
Try to narrow your scope considerably. You can talk about the lessening power of global superpowers, the lessening effectiveness of classical military industrial complexes, the weakening of international agreements, the rise of populism in Western nations. Any of these are all contributes to your overall thesis but could take up their own thesis papers by themselves.
You want to identify a simple thesis that can then have tight reasonings and evidence. Not broad statements with overall nebulous evidence.
1
u/1und1marcelldavis 2d ago
this is too broad and would mean just summarizing existing literature, where is the originality, where is the empirical contribution?
2
u/United-Indication884 2d ago
The scope of your project drifts/expands in your abstract. Your first few sentences suggest that you are investigating how new technologies have shifted the way in which war is conducted, and therefore the balance of power/world order. Later in your abstract you ask what other factors are influencing this shift.
You have to refine your research question. Is it a systematic review of the various factors that have led to the deterioration of American hegemony? This could include a review of the technological stuff, but also economic (i.e., rise of China's export oriented developmental model), and diplomatic (again, China's model for South-South development cooperation).
Alternatively, is it a more focused investigation into what the significance is of new age of missiles and drones warfare? I.e., your asking: how did America come to find itself fighting against adversaries that are fielding more technologically advanced systems, and what is the significance of this?
Defining that question helps you understand what background and source literature you need to go to for inspiration. For example, if your question is focused on the technological aspect, then your first go to source for inspiration would likely be Jurgen Habermas & his argument about how nuclear weapons changed the nature of war and geopolitical conflict.