Talk:Security dilemma: Difference between revisions
Grizanthropy (talk | contribs) |
change milhist |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MILHIST|class=stub| |
{{MILHIST|class=stub | SciTech = yes | histiography = yes}} |
||
{{WPIR|class=stub|importance=mid}} |
{{WPIR|class=stub|importance=mid}} |
||
{{WikiProject Politics|class=stub|importance=mid}} |
{{WikiProject Politics|class=stub|importance=mid}} |
Revision as of 02:57, 4 April 2011
Military history: Technology Stub‑class | |||||||||||||||||||
|
International relations Stub‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Politics Stub‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Intro Re-Write
To honor the refinement of this stub I propose the following overview. I'm also working on a sourced history including Thucydides, Hume, Waltz, Jervis and others. The spiral concept can be included in the body. It may confuse a reader who is not introduced to the basic concept of the dilemma as such:
The Security Dilemma asserts that both strength and weakness in national security can be provocative to other nations. If a nation is too strong, this can be provocative since “most means of self-protection simultaneously menace others” (Jervis, p 63). On the other hand, if a nation is too weak, “great dangers arise if an aggressor believes that the status quo powers are weak in capability or resolve" (Jervis, p 58). Thus, directly and indirectly, both strength and weakness can upset the balance of security in international relations.
- Stub-Class military history articles
- Stub-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- Stub-Class International relations articles
- Mid-importance International relations articles
- WikiProject International relations articles
- Stub-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles