A definition details power as the “ability and capacity to force, coerce, or persuade others to do what they would not otherwise do” (Zook). In President Obama’s terms, he entails a more specific version, emphasizing the importance of “giving up some freedom of action” to follow international rules as well as “welcom[ing] scrutiny of our own actions”; he describes power as a tool that gives countries credibility, reliability, and reputation instead of the exertion of brute strength, although physical strength is still a necessary aspect of a powerful country. Obama simply defers the focus away from physical prowess to a different definition of a diminished importance of arms and weapons. He gives the example of Russia, describing how its meddling nature toward its neighboring countries merely serves to lower its presence, diminishing its power, and also decreases the security of the nation, emphasizing how it essentially receives losses for its actions. But from a Realist perspective, Obama’s definition of power simply undermines a nation’s stature in international affairs. Power is considered a limited, finite resource; one state’s gain results in another state’s loss, known as “zero sum politics,” leading to the natural arising of tensions in this competitive environment. Following a top-down model, the greater the accumulation of the power, the greater the security a nation enjoys. Also, Obama champions soft power -- power built through reputation or socioeconomic status -- over hard power -- military strength and prowess -- by claiming the urgent necessity to “stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.” The security dilemma, or the arms buildup, presents an example for the requisite of hard power. If one country stops building nuclear weapons, that nation now faces the
A definition details power as the “ability and capacity to force, coerce, or persuade others to do what they would not otherwise do” (Zook). In President Obama’s terms, he entails a more specific version, emphasizing the importance of “giving up some freedom of action” to follow international rules as well as “welcom[ing] scrutiny of our own actions”; he describes power as a tool that gives countries credibility, reliability, and reputation instead of the exertion of brute strength, although physical strength is still a necessary aspect of a powerful country. Obama simply defers the focus away from physical prowess to a different definition of a diminished importance of arms and weapons. He gives the example of Russia, describing how its meddling nature toward its neighboring countries merely serves to lower its presence, diminishing its power, and also decreases the security of the nation, emphasizing how it essentially receives losses for its actions. But from a Realist perspective, Obama’s definition of power simply undermines a nation’s stature in international affairs. Power is considered a limited, finite resource; one state’s gain results in another state’s loss, known as “zero sum politics,” leading to the natural arising of tensions in this competitive environment. Following a top-down model, the greater the accumulation of the power, the greater the security a nation enjoys. Also, Obama champions soft power -- power built through reputation or socioeconomic status -- over hard power -- military strength and prowess -- by claiming the urgent necessity to “stopping the spread of nuclear weapons.” The security dilemma, or the arms buildup, presents an example for the requisite of hard power. If one country stops building nuclear weapons, that nation now faces the