You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 12 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
This lesson examines how superpowers shape geopolitical stability and instability through alliances, proxy wars, nuclear deterrence, peacekeeping and the creation of spheres of influence. You will analyse whether superpowers are forces for stability or sources of conflict, and how the changing balance of power affects global security. This lesson addresses the Edexcel Enquiry Question: "What are the implications of the changing balance of power for the future of the global order?"
Military alliances are formal agreements between states to provide mutual defence. They are a primary mechanism through which superpowers project power, deter adversaries and maintain spheres of influence.
NATO, discussed in Lesson 4, is the world's most powerful military alliance:
The SCO was founded in 2001 by China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. It has since expanded to include India, Pakistan and Iran.
| Feature | NATO | SCO |
|---|---|---|
| Founded | 1949 | 2001 |
| Members | 32 | 10 (including India, Iran) |
| Combined GDP ($ trillion) | ~45 | ~25 |
| Military spending ($ billion) | ~1,200 | ~450 |
| Integrated command structure | Yes (SACEUR) | No |
| Collective defence clause | Yes (Article 5) | No formal equivalent |
| Nuclear powers | 3 (USA, UK, France) | 4 (Russia, China, India, Pakistan) |
| Primary focus | Collective defence, crisis management | Counter-terrorism, regional stability |
Exam Tip: Comparing NATO and the SCO is an effective way to illustrate the shift towards multipolarity. NATO remains far more powerful and integrated, but the SCO's membership (including nuclear powers and over 40% of the world's population) demonstrates that alternative security architectures are emerging.
A proxy war is a conflict in which superpowers support opposing sides without fighting each other directly. Proxy wars allow superpowers to compete for influence while avoiding the catastrophic risk of direct confrontation.
Proxy wars did not end with the Cold War. Contemporary examples include:
graph TB
A["SUPERPOWER A<br/>(or alliance)"] -->|"Weapons, funding,<br/>intelligence, training"| B["Proxy Force /<br/>Ally Government"]
C["SUPERPOWER B<br/>(or alliance)"] -->|"Weapons, funding,<br/>intelligence, training"| D["Opposing Proxy Force /<br/>Ally Government"]
B <-->|"ARMED CONFLICT<br/>Direct fighting"| D
A -.->|"NO DIRECT<br/>COMBAT"| C
style A fill:#1565c0,color:#fff
style C fill:#c62828,color:#fff
style B fill:#42a5f5,color:#fff
style D fill:#ef5350,color:#fff
Nuclear weapons are the ultimate expression of military hard power. The doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) held during the Cold War that neither the USA nor the USSR would launch a nuclear first strike because doing so would guarantee their own destruction in a retaliatory strike.
| Country | Estimated Warheads | Delivery Systems |
|---|---|---|
| Russia | 5,580 | ICBMs, SLBMs, strategic bombers |
| USA | 5,044 | ICBMs, SLBMs, strategic bombers (nuclear triad) |
| China | ~500 (growing rapidly) | ICBMs, SLBMs, strategic bombers |
| France | 290 | SLBMs, air-launched missiles |
| UK | 225 | SLBMs (Trident) |
| Pakistan | ~170 | Missiles, aircraft |
| India | ~172 | Missiles, aircraft, submarines |
| Israel | ~90 (undeclared) | Missiles, aircraft, submarines (suspected) |
| North Korea | ~50 | Missiles (reliability uncertain) |
Arguments for: Nuclear deterrence has prevented direct war between great powers since 1945 — the longest such peace in modern history. The Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) demonstrated that even in extreme tension, MAD prevented nuclear war.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 12 lessons in this course.