Henry Kissinger's quote, "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac" has been depicted throughout history. For many centuries, one communal goal found amongst disparate individuals, colonies, and nations was the desire to obtain the greatest magnitude of power. The collective mindset found concerning dominant and subordinate relationships was that 'power relationships' were important to keep any particular union perpetual. Thus, different orders of power were seen to be the source to sustaining a fruitful society. Although the thirst for power was equal for everyone, only the greatest obtained it. Power can be defined as the right to exert control over a certain group of people or objects (Merriam-Webster, 2014). It can be exercised by numerous methods and can result in different outcomes. Until the 20th century, countries frequently relied on military powers in order to attempt to conserve peace. However, that approach lacked success, and tactics were reformed in the 1980s when Joseph Nye, an American political scientist, classified two concepts known as hard and soft powers. Robert Cooper famously argued that victorious states must use both hard and soft powers in order to adequately achieve fixed long-term objectives. This essay will begin by defining both hard and soft powers and examine the complex interaction between the two; it will then go on to prove that one cannot apply soft power without applying some form of hard power and vice versa.
Hard power can be defined as a nation's ability to use military force or economic incentives in order to influence the choices and behaviours of other nations (public diplomacy, 2013). The strategies of hard power actors are geared towards threatening other actors into compliance. It is always used in the context of violence and aggression. It is usually most effective when it is used by a political entity against one of lesser military and economic capacity.
