Finally, the changing nature of the themes in world policy diminishes the ability of the major powers to control their environment. More and more subjects are not just exposing one state against another; In some cases, all states try to control private and transnational non-state actors. The resolution of many issues of transnational interdependence requires collective action and cooperation between states. Areas of global action include ecological changes such as acid rain and global warming, the health epidemic such as AIDS and drug trafficking, and terrorist control. While violence can sometimes play a role, traditional instruments of power are rarely sufficient to deal with such issues. New power resources, such as effective communication and use of multilateral institutions, may be more relevant. Finally, the current phase of improving bilateral relations offers the United States and the Soviet Union an important opportunity to cooperate with other countries to strengthen and establish the distribution of power. Here, too, there are gains that must be imprisoned. These multilateral arms control systems must be viewed in a broader security context.

For example, the superpowers have already rediscovered the value of UN peacekeeping forces, which are themselves a measure of confidence and security. They can also rediscover the wisdom of the first post-war architects of the United Nations Charter and, in particular, of the United Nations Security Council. At a time when the major powers are reducing their engagement in the Third World, other countries may be more interested in limiting regional violence. There are signs that some of the least developed countries have begun to understand that their traditional litany of complaints is somewhat incidental. A UN diplomat told me privately, ”What will we do when we no longer have the great powers to go around?” It is just a small exaggeration to say that the Cold War was really a nuclear weapons issue. The nuclear era and the Cold War began at about the same time. Nuclear weapons, defined on important points, are the relations between the two main players in the Cold War. They are nuclear weapons that have distinguished the Cold War from the great political rivalries of the past. The nuclear dimension has rarely been lost to leaders, if it is, and it has created a nuclear fear pervasive in public opinion, especially at the beginning of the Cold War. Every president of the United States since the beginning of the Cold War has felt compelled to try to control nuclear weapons in one way or another, even though most of them have also built up our nuclear arsenal.

As the debate continues over a cautious response in bilateral relations, other analysts are calling for more attention for another aspect of the current era, the distribution of power in world politics. As long as intense superpower hostility overshadowed world politics, the gradual distribution of power in world politics was not easily discernible. With the reduction of the Soviet threat in the Gorbachev era and the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from certain positions in the Third World, further changes in the nature of world politics became more visible. The nuclear arms race was an arms race in the nuclear war between the United States, the Soviet Union and their respective allies during the Cold War.