In October of 1989, one night I returned to my dorm room at the University of Wyoming to find that people were dancing on the Berlin Wall – and no one was being fired upon by the border guards. I instantly knew that the world I had grown up in had changed.

My father was in the Air Force for 20 years; we spent three years in what was West Germany. Being an Air Force brat makes one a hard-core realist concerning world affairs. I hold the realist view of the world, one where the international system is inherently anarchic and that power in its various forms is the only determining factor in how nations behave. It’s not difficult to reach this view when the place where you live is just 10 minutes away from being vaporized by a Soviet ballistic missile warhead.

When the Wall came down and the sweeping changes in the old Soviet bloc began occurring in late 1989, the overwhelming feeling for most people was joy. The Cold War had ended, and we had all been freed from the possibility of a nuclear exchange between the superpowers. I, however, was more wary of what was to come.

While the specter of all-out nuclear conflict had faded, the world was about to become far more dangerous. The standoff between the United States and the Soviet Union had kept a relative level of peace for over 40 years. There were conflicts of various size and intensity throughout that time- Vietnam, Afghanistan, the Arab-Israeli Wars – but in only one case did a direct conflict seem possible. The Cuban Missile Crisis demonstrated that a direct superpower confrontation would prove futile, and the system of war by proxy (fighting limited wars through surrogate nations) became cemented in place.

But the old balance of power that kept the lid on major conflicts is no longer in place, and no new system of international security has yet emerged. The balance of terror, as it was sometimes called, was indeed terrible, but it worked. Relatively small conflicts routinely broke out but they were controllable, mainly because they had to be. The major powers could not allow a small war to spread since the consequences of escalation were so great. Today there is no such guarantee. A relatively small conflict could rage out of control and engulf many nations; for example, the Balkans Crisis could eventually involve any nation bordering any of the primary combatants.

It was expected by many that the United Nations would assume the role of the world’s watchman in the post-Cold War environment. This has obviously not been the case. The United Nations has been shown to be powerless in stopping conflict unless the combatants wanted the United Nations to be the mediator in the peace process. The civil war in Kampuchea (Cambodia) ended because both sides wanted to end the war and asked the United Nations to assist in keeping the peace by sponsoring the peace treaty and placing a monitoring force on the ground.

However, in cases where there is no willingness by the warring parties to end the conflict, such as in the Balkans, the United Nations is completely helpless. The reason is quite simple; the United Nations, with over 150 member states, cannot set an agenda unified enough for a major military operation to be executed. Make no mistake; peacekeeping operations are military operations, especially in a place like the Balkans. The only way to keep the combatants apart and stop the fighting in such a place is to go in with overwhelming military force and demonstrate a willingness to use it in order to keep the peace. Unity of command and unity of purpose are basic principles in any successful military operation, and the United Nations is capable of neither.

Making the situation even more volatile is the proliferation of advanced weaponry onto the open market, in particular weapons systems from the former Soviet Union. Nations formerly limited to second-rate technology are now able to buy first-line systems, and for very reasonable prices. The large weapons manufacturers from Russia, the U.S. and France are struggling with a smaller domestic market and are selling some extremely lethal systems to the developing world in order to stay in business. Russia, for example, just unveiled a number of new military aircraft which they are actively promoting for export customers.

Eventually, a new international security system will develop out of the current chaos. But exactly what form this system will take, and who will hold the power in it, remains to be seen. But until then, we are living in a very dangerous time.

Kevin S. Kirby is a senior in journalism and mass communication from Des Moines. He has a B.A. in political science from the University of Wyoming.