Liberal perspective may claim that the rise of economic independence and international organisations triggered the increase in weapons, causing wars to be costly and undesirable for states. Throughout the past decades, expanding globalisation has only accelerated this trend resulting in wars to be unaffordable and irrational for a state economy. This created an awareness or realisation that a state can profit more from peaceful encounters rather than violent exchanges. However, Realists offer a alternate explanation, suggesting that the invention of Nuclear Weapons have greatly contributed to world peace. This is because of the prospect that a Nuclear launch is inescapable and the chaotic aftermath is an adequate punishment, a threat to prevent wars from breaking out in the first place. Take North Korea for example, despite the tension that was built up surrounding the issue, no real war took place as the idea of nuclear war frightens the actors in the issue. Overall, from these reasons the state more likely to survive international relation is the realists.The reason being is that the idea of countries not causing wars because of limitation to their economy is petty and unreliable. It may be true that some wars between small, less economically developed countries can be prevented, countries with the capability to offer war may go against each other. Realism can secure a more peaceful world through the use of threats notably more reliable and easy to achieve. It does not initiate any kind of violence, but just the possession of a killer weapon frightens the opponent countries, we can avent any further outbreak of wars.