Talk:Security dilemma

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Technology Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Stub

This article has been rated as Stub-class on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

International relations Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

--pjm (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Essence of the Dilemma Using Jervis

A response to IP 46.208.68.242

Good point in the notes of the edit page. Yet, by deleting the intro paragraph from February 2011 (see note above), we are losing an important insight by Jervis into the essence of the dilemma. While the security dilemma may be used today to discuss miscommunications, a dilemma by definition is “a situation in which a difficult choice has to be made between two or more alternatives, especially equally undesirable ones.” Jervis does indeed indicate—as a seminal author of the original meaning—that being too strong or being too weak both present problems—thus the dilemma. Authors could evolve the meaning of the dilemma to be choices between “too strong” and “just right” but that is not how Jervis lays out the dilemma. I recommend returning his concept to the introduction as spiral theory only captures one (popular and important) aspect of the dilemma as described by Jervis in his own words. I’ll wait for comment before reverting back to the quotes from Jervis.--pjm (talk) 04:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]