The influence of the number of poles in the system on the results has always been a controversial issue. According to Karl, morgenthau and other classical equilibrium theorists, Kaplan believes that multipolar systems are not prone to war.

Deutsch and Singh also advocated multipolarity to reduce the risk of war, while Waltz observed the relative stability of relations between major powers during the Cold War and tended to be bipolar (reducing the risk of war). In addition, Mearsheimer, Levi and Kegley claimed that multipolarization increased the risk of war. Some scholars use the number of countries at war-the number of months that last as a dependent variable.

Focusing on the number of countries involved in the war at a certain stage-the number of months it lasts-is an effective means to measure the scale of the war in the system, because it can produce information different from simply evaluating the number of wars.

In fact, the spread of war is not the only variable that affects the scale of war. The concept of war scale consists of three parts, namely, the number of wars, the number of countries involved in the war and the duration of the war, all of which affect the number of war countries experienced by the system at a certain stage-the number of months it lasts.

For any given international pattern, the key determinant is the number and intensity of poles. Others believe that the unipolar system is both peaceful and lasting. Only from the perspective of international politics can we truly recognize its moral and religious camouflage and fully realize the universal value and significance of Confucian culture in establishing real world peace.