my opinion of 大国政治的悲剧

1) 攻击性的现实主义: This existed since the dawn of humanity, it is nothing new. It is just a way to maximize effectiveness in a power struggle between groups of human for an idea, or materials, or the right to exist. Being a hegemony of course offered the greatest protection, but how to suppress others from coming into power, thus reducing your own protection, is the most important. If he views all countries in the world are 攻击性的现实主义 then he might as well view all of humanity as a specie of 攻击性的现实主义 and let Darwinism rule all.

2) 民主和平论辨析: according to his logic above then, his second logic of 民主 countries won't have wars are seriously flawed. 民主 is a political idea, while 攻击性的现实主义 also exist in democratic countries. When all the nations of Earth are 民主, would 攻击性的现实主义 disappear? Of course not. And as long as it exists, there will be conflicts. It will start from small ones to big ones, from non-military to military. Since his first logical point was not political and truly independent of bias (assuming), then how can he justify his second point of logic by adding political ideology to it?

3) 人口和财富辨析: Wealth and population definitely determines the strength of a nation but to be defined as hegemony needs so much more than that. Hegemony is defined more as a political intention and purpose than just the actual/potential national strength. And without looking at a nation’s history and culture, how can he be sure of its future intentions? To matter worst, he used US own history and culture as his support to write about the intention of another country who was not part of the Euro/Western culture. Logically, how wrong is that already?

4) 逻辑推论：“一个国家要想生存下去就必然成为霸权国家”: Sure, but just looking at European history, I can find a few examples to the opposite. Were the Greek Empire under Alexander and the Roman Empire under Caesars hegemonies at the time? Did their nations survive the test of time? Survival of a nation doesn’t depend on being outward hegemonies but rather intrinsic cultural strength of its people. To survive, one must adapt. This is the core of Darwinism and part of his 攻击性的现实主义, but it didn’t call for willful destruction of another for survival, didn’t it? What he is actually saying is that hegemony don’t need to adapt to survive, they just need to get rid of its competitors. Is that how Darwinism work?

5) 结论: 故此约翰•米尔斯海默主张美国仿效英国曾扮演的角色，即不要指望成为全球霸权，而是扮演最后关头的裁决者的角色，防止欧亚大陆出现潜在霸权. Did UK prevented the emergence of US? What role does UK play now? How then can he tell US to copy UK and repeat this history all over again?
He started out unbiased, but increasingly asserted more political, cultural, patriotic biases as he moved from one logical point to the next. In all, this is just another modified Cold War book trying to stop the advancement of human cooperativeness by using the power of hegemony to divide and conquer all potential challenges to its power and telling US to maximize the 攻击性的现实主义 to achieve maintain its sole hegemony position. This is a great book for US hawks, not so great for rest of humanity.