What does the neorealism argue about balance of power and stability? What are the main problems with the neorealist claim about balance of power and stability?

What will be an ideal response?

Ans: The neorealist argument is that, when power is distributed equally between two power blocs, wars are not likely to occur. When there is no balance of power, wars are more likely. The reason is that in a bipolar world there is less uncertainty than in a multipolar world and there are fewer conflicting commitments. The problem with this claim is that it is not grounded in the neorealist assumptions, Even if there is more uncertainty in the multipolar world than in the bipolar one, it is not clear from the assumptions how states respond to uncertainty. If we add such an assumption, we run into additional problems because it seems to contradict other assumptions and predictions. A deeper problem is that, using the neorealist logic, it is possible to show that a bipolar world can be both stable and unstable, and so can multipolar worlds. Therefore, stability is not determined by the distribution of power. There are also empirical problems associated with this claim; historically, bipolar systems did not survive longer than multipolar systems.