Just been studying Locke's contractualism in critical light of Hobbes and discovered some interesting analogies/synergies to current unilateralist and 'pre-emptive strike' policies.
What fundamentally differentiates Locke from Hobbes in the contractualist structure seems to be that for Locke, the natural state is nonetheless one of justice. Hobbes believed that where there is no political authority, there is no law, therefore no justice. He grounds this in his descriptions of human nature which are materialistic to the extent of allowing him to produce some severe ethical relativism, far removed from the cunning beauty of scientifically reduced Nietzsche and his 'moral as necessary fiction' (and I see this in such analogy to capitalism vs. current ethical agenda). Hobbes defines the natural state as one of constant war, the relationship between his natural laws and natural rights being so that there is no injustice, hence even suggesting the rationality of a pre-emptive strike. In this scenario then, it's quite reasonable to assume that the only way peace can be guaranteed, is via the forceful implementation of an absolutist, juidicially positivist ('what we say goes') ruler (even more so ironically, this whole philosophy is now being interpreted via Nash equilibrium and 'prisoner dilemma' - the maths must be appealing to hawks, Nobel Prize after all, plus movie - movie propagandaistic of philosophical/mathematical implications of US foreign policy? Hehe... all you need is imagination and a new word. 'Security'? Presto! 'Who said Nobel Prize isn't politically motivated?' It's like Chomsky and Mr. Fortune 500 winner for Econ prize.).
Locke's liberal position on the other hand, defines the natural state as one of peace with working natural laws and via the right of self-justice, leading to conflict undoubtedly, justifies the existence of a constitutional authority that can nonetheless be removed when in breach of the natural laws. Locke's central argument contra Hobbes' absolutism seems to be that entities in the natural state would have never consented to the forceful implementation of an absolute ruler. And it's this consent that Hobbes' doesn't seem to require due to his ethical relativism ('auctoritas non veritas facit legem' - not the truth but the legislative authority decides what is just and what is unjust).
So what is it with the realism? Is it essentially a different theory of justice, grounded in different epistemological approaches? Rumsfeld: "The US must defend itself against the unknown, the uncertain, the unseen, the unexpected". Or: "Not only do we not exclude possibilites; we don't even announce it when we do exclude a possibility." (Besides "Good for you"), what is all this epistemic banter...?! Can you see it? Kant would turn in his grave, Donald..!

Anyone have any more insights into Hobbes/US foreign policy a la Kaplan? Am I just tripping over the game theory? Phil? Jesse?