Questions On The Security Dilemma

Robert Jervis in ‘Security dilemma’ states that “states can neither neglect the possibility that others will become aggressive in the future nor credibly guarantee that they themselves remain peaceful”. He argued that although other motives such as ‘greed, glory and honour’ come into play, much of international politics is

It focuses on the state and international level of analysis to understand the rationality behind the war. Iraq posed an imminent and significant threat to the United States with its alleged weapons of mass destruction. The United States under the governing of the Bush Administration saw it fit to eliminate the threat while also striving to ensure a stable oil supply in the Persian Gulf. This first explanation coincides with the realist phenomenon of “security dilemma”, The United States saw Iraq compilation of weapons as a viable threat, but instead of building up their military in response to such threat, they decided to go to war. Although, the U.S. invasion does not follow the security dilemma to a tee. It can be argued that the United States acted as a unitary and rational force perusing their national interest which was to destabilize the weapons and ensure a sense of national security by launching a preemptive strike. By striking first the U.S. practice a form of asymmetric warfare which from a realist perspective The U.S. exercises a balance of power during the Iraq conflict. In order to balance power in the international system, the U.S. wanted to eliminate Iraq of their weapons since they posed too much of a threat against their own relative power and therefore were strong enough to dominate other states if possible. This philosophy explains the fundamental of realist

Realists’ belief that, “war is unavoidable and natural part of world affairs.” According to Bova, there are over 200 sovereign states, and they all interest to gain power to defend themselves. As a result, state’s feeling of insecurity causes it to take any means to feel secure whether it is through the formation of ally with another powerful state or accumulation of military and economic power. Such action threatens other states provoke them take similar actions. This cycle applies to all states, and the feeling of threat and desire to survive is innate in humans In understanding International Relations, McNamara’s lesson is useful in the regards that actions that state takes to protect itself causes the complexity and conflicts of foreign policies that human beings are incapable of

In the world today, ideological differences are the root causes of many conflicts between individuals or nations and if allowed to aggravate, it becomes the brush strokes for a canvas that turn out to be the portrait of an all-out warfare. However, before countries engage in militarism, it is prudent that the leadership takes pragmatic steps towards a peaceable resolution because the misconception among architects of conflict is to further private agenda for their personal benefit. In a blind quest for gratification, these benefits are an opportunity cost for the larger society who is the unfortunate recipient of the ensuing anarchy. Nothing is fair in war; casualties caught up within the crossfire

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

The most prevalent reasons for states going to war are security, interest, standing, and revenge; of these, I posit that security is the most frequent. For the purposes of this paper, I will focus on warfare occurring since the onset of the 20th century, however many of the core arguments retain efficacy through the countless centuries of human warfare. States don’t trust one another; even the best relationships between states are mired in spycraft with, or in opposition to one another. To summarize Waltz, drive for security is something that all states want, and need, as long as there are multiple states and at least one of them is looking for power.

Throughout much of the history of civilizations, states have declared war for land, valuables, and resources. In the course of the mid-20th century and the 21st century, ascendant super powers have invaded foreign lands for resources such as oil, and weapons companies have profited from the ongoing cycle of war these super powers promote. The populations of these states have been fed lies vis-à-vis the media; propagandizing these “rogue nations” and promoting an ‘Us vs. Them’ mentality, to garner support for these armed conflicts. War is our primordial instinct, as humans are territorial and aggressive. That is our nature, and by looking at events in our history, one may see that war appears to be timeless and inevitable.

No nation is ever merely able to act at its people’s whim; a system of alliances and treaties has formed over the course of history, and breaking any of those agreements can mean anything from a small conflict to a large-scale war. One such

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.

The United States of America faces many key security challenges in the current world order and will continue to face evolving challenges under the leadership of the new Trump administration. Some of the national security challenges that the American government faces have been issues since the founding of the country, such as the existence of adversary states, but several others have arisen because of advancing technology and the rapid exchange of information in a globalized world. Examples of fairly recent national security challenges include international terrorism and cyber security threats, which have both had a large presence in the news lately and have drawn the focus and concern of the American people. As a result of the existence of

I really like your thorough explanation regarding the bargaining theory of war. It is true that winning comes at a price, and usually the casualty of citizens are numerous. When weighing between going to war and to not, there is always a strong reason against. However, due to the reasons you mentioned, war ends up happening. For instance, credible commitment is a huge problem because the incentive to default always stand. Take the Russian-American conflict on nuclear weapons. There have been many treaties to safe guard this weapon from being utilized and triggering massive destruction. However, the incentive to attack can rise as simple as the reason to “attack first”. First strike advantages mere means that the party who attacks

Conflict, whether between states or within states, is costly. Not only is the event itself costly but it is inefficient because oftentimes the same outcome could’ve been reached without conflict. Yet, conflict still occurs in the international system. If both parties knew what the outcome of a particular conflict would be, they could reach an agreement beforehand to avoid conflict’s high cost. However, predicting the future is not yet possible and so to address this issue, James Fearon developed a bargaining model of war that aims to explain why states so often fail to reach peaceful bargains. Building upon this rationalist explanation for war, Benjamin Valentino discusses the use of mass killing as a rational tool for leaders. Both arguments fail to take into account the individual experience – an experience driven and shaped by emotion. The events in Kosovo in the

In the post-cold war era, with the rise of globalisation and the interdependence of markets, one can observe the moribund decline of traditional inter-state conflicts and the rise of more complex intra-state conflicts. The reasons behind these conflicts are manifold but at the heart is arguably always a conflict of interest between two or more groups. The Uppsala Conflict Data Project (2016) defines armed

Secondly, the motivation for war in pursuit of honor was alleviated through the formalization of international diplomacy and the evolution of beliefs about human rights. Lastly, we reviewed how the pursuit of self-interests, specifically security and resources, continues to serve a motivator for conflict, but primarily between those states operating outside of the current international order. So what are the implications of this argument for the future? The way in which we choose to manage the self-interests of states is of utmost importance. There is either the potential to reduce self-interests as a motivator for war, or the potential to erode the previous reduction of fear as a motivator. The current international order has prevented great-power war for over 70 years. There have been conflicts motivated by self-interests, but they pale in comparison to the death and destruction of the world wars. As threats to security arise and resources are restrained, states have the option to work within the system to meet them or pursue them by other

The security dilemma is a fundamental concept in IR originate in John Herz’s writing provided the definition of security dilemma back in 1951 “a structural notion in which the self-help attempts of states to look after their security needs tend, regardless of intention, to lead to rising insecurity to others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening” (Herz, 1950: 157) which is a classic definition heavily associates with realism. In international system, where there are no world governments or police to provide security for states as a result state exist in an anarchy and the only way to ensure their own security is through self-help. In short, security dilemmas caused by anarchy, however, in this essay,