War—Theory and Analysis of Results 17
to the collapse of the bipolar system of 1946–1991 and to formation of the
unipolar system of 1992–2016 in its place. Similarly, unipolar systems will
dictate to the hyperpower heading them to preserve its status as the sole
polar power in the system, even at the price of exhausting its economic
resources. An example of this is the forecast that the United States may
lose its current status as the sole hyperpower in a unipolar world follow-
ing its efforts to preserve its status in the system, which may exhaust its
material resources.^11
Another course of action is taking negative and positive feedback
actions to prevent the formation of hegemonies by the other powers. These
actions may lead to destruction of the homeostasis, which will lead the
polar powers to act to balance out other polar powers by engaging in total
war against a potential hegemon. This action will lead to their fall and
replacement of the existing polarity model with another one. An example
of this is France’s and Great Britain’s decline from polar power status due
to their economic exhaustion at the end of the Second World War. Their
fall from their standing stemmed from their attempts to prevent the rise
of Germany to hegemon status in the system. In other words, it involved
taking negative feedback action that was intended to preserve the homeo-
stasis in the system.
This book assesses only one systemic international outcome, the stabil-
ity of three possible polarity models of the international system, which I
discuss expansively below.
SYSTEMIC FACTORS AND INTERNATIONAL SYSTEMS
STABILITY
The term international systems stability has been given different defini-
tions in theoretical international relations research. Harrison Wagner
makes a distinction between stability and peace. According to him, an
international system will be defined as stable if the independence of all
players is maintained, but when one or more countries are removed, this
system will no longer be defined as stable. In his opinion, peace is defined
as an absence of war. An international system may be defined as stable
even if there are frequent wars in which many countries lose significant
parts of their territory, as long as they continue to be part of the system.^12
Like Wagner, Randall Schweller argues that the meaning of systemic sta-
bility is that no player in the system is destroyed.^13 Waltz defines stabil-
ity as an absence of change in the number of poles,^14 but elsewhere he
recognizes that stability is an absence of war between the great powers.^15
Mearsheimer states that stability is an absence of wars and major crises.^16
Jack Levy defines stability as the absence of a major war.^17
The book assesses the stability of each of the three possible international
systems relative to the two other international systems. The stability of