The book is a stringent critic of realism based on Lakotosian and Kuhn's philosophical perspectives. The question one ponders after reading the book is: Whether his critic makes a persuasive sense that realism, as predominant image of international politics, failed in predicting international politics? I don't think he makes a persuasive case. First, his arguments that realism is a degenerative science and transformed into infallibility is not supported by evidences, at least very few people agree with that argument. Rather, he believes that it is degenerative in nature just because that suits his purpose. However, if we go by his logic, liberalism, another predominant theoretical viewpoint, is also degenerative and literally infallible. Yet, he rarely cares about that perspective. Next, Vasquez is a closet constructive, but fails to directly state that is the case for the reason that constructivism is not a theory in the first place and it could explain everything reaching the realm of infallibility from the start; instead, he indirectly attacks realism as if such an approach will make realism as a failed scientitifc approach to understand international politics. Finally, realism, on the other hand, is a diverse and holistic school in explaining international politics; however, for Vasquez, it is a monotonous school of thought focussing just on balance of power and nothing else. He makes this big assumption which is not true, according to various realists. There are many critics about this book by realists why he is dead wrong except the idea to test theories based on Laktosian perspective. Nevertheless, Vasquez disagrees with their arguments and explanations because he is arrogant and ignorant enough to prove the case they are wrong. He sounds more like a wrecker-in-chief and interestingly provides solutions such as post-modernists and constructivists as a better bet for future theories. That solution itself questions his logic of whether he wants science or just anti-scientific prescriptions for explaining international politics. No wonder, despite his trenchant criticism and unfounded logic behind his vitriol, realism is the predominant image in international politics even in 2016. This condition speaks volumes about why his book is just a hit piece than a constructive critic.