Over the years there has been enormous controversy over the importance of military power to states. Military power can be defined as the total material and intellectual resources of a state and its ability to mobilize these resources to achieve military objectives or to accomplish other tasks. Generally, military power materializes directly in the armed forces (Krillov, 2005). A strong military force is also a necessity for other states that wish to pursue objectives that require the intervention of another state's sovereignty. That being said, the big question remains: “The most important factor in whether or not states get what they want is always the scale of their military power.” Is this true or false? My position on this assertion is that military power has been the primary instrument used by nation states to control and dominate each other and to subtly use force to defend their interests, except in cases of asymmetric warfare. Asymmetric warfare provides states with weaker military power and an alternative means of retaliating against their adversaries, which poses a stumbling block for states with military power. However, apart from the asymmetric strategy, states generally use their military force to achieve certain objectives. The importance of the army in state power is a legacy of the era of wars, territorial expansion and the clash of ideologies. Military power has always been paramount. The entire history of the world is marked by the limitations of dominant military powers, starting with ancient Rome, China, France in the 1700s, the United Kingdom in the 1800s, and so on. States with military power use two military strategies: liberal and realist. The liberals' strategy is known as coercion and the realistic strategy is deterrence middle of paper...... er in other forms that their military force cannot sustain. This is visible in the Vietnam War and the terrorist attacks launched against the United States and other dominant countries. Therefore, the military is strong and cohesive and helps dominant states impose their desires on weaker ones, but it cannot maintain asymmetrical power. Works cited1. Andrew H. Kydd and Barbara F. Walter. 2006. “The Strategies of Terrorism.” International Security 31 (1): 49-80, especially pages 66-69.2. Kilcullen, D. (2006). “Counterinsurgency redux.” Survival 48(4): 111-130.3. Kirillov, VV "Military power: nature, structure, problems. - Military Thought | HighBeam Research - ." Research - Articles - Journals | http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-144497113.html (accessed March 8, 2011).4. Mingst, Karen A.. The essentials of international relations. New York: W. W. Norton, 1999.