後冷戰時期，世界大戰似乎已成為過去式，在可預見的未來，似乎也不會發生。和平是國際關係實務中，國家長期追求的目標，也是人類開始建立國家後共同理想。 兩岸關係自開始交流後，雖呈現熱絡與和平狀態，但兩岸的敵對狀態卻未結束，在軍力對比上是呈現往中共方向傾斜的失衡狀況；從另一個角度來看，越是失衡的「軍事」實力，兩岸間的緊張情勢反而是日趨和緩。這樣的情況，又要如何解釋呢？國際關係學者 Colin Elman透過建立解釋性模型，將權力威脅強弱分析作類型分類，其中距離遠近、能力高低、以及攻擊意願強弱，將會影響威脅程度的高低，藉以說明軍事失衡所帶來的和平。本文嘗試以 Colin Elman的類型分析，並結合國際關係理論綜合的觀點，探索兩岸之間的軍力因軍事實力失衡，而威脅逐漸加大，但卻因兩岸交流頻繁，反而顯示更為和平的象徵。本文認為維護自身軍事實力，是國家生存的基本條件。然而經由建立共識，逐步朝建立信心建立機制、兩岸經貿聯盟或治理的方式，將可作為和平的穩定基石。

After the Cold War, it is impossible for world war to occur. Therefore, Joseph S. Nye introduces the term of soft power and smart power that are respected by many people. However, in this case, there is military imbalance in Cross-Strait but peace. However, from another perspective, the more unbalanced the military the more peace. Colin Elman had made the threat type, including distance, ability, willingness to attack or defend. Colin Elman thought that the military imbalance in Cross-Strait is increasing menace. Although the actual distance has not changed, technological advances shorten the distance between the invisible restrictions. Although frequent exchanges between the two sides can be used as a symbol of peace, the most important is to keep the military capability to earn the peace negotiations basis.