The notion of security dilemma is significant in the contemporary school of International Relations (IR). The primary concept stems from the modern politics in the developing nations. The discussion includes the sceptical elements in human affairs. Thus, the autonomous states have to consult with each other to seek the mutual safety solutions, such as military force. The security measures are becoming more sophisticated since the arms used for national protection are likely to cause destruction to other states. Furthermore, the arms are seen as the material reality that gives rise to the security problem, as they are fundamentally confusing tools (Doyle 127). The weaker nations do not always understand the real intentions of the superior nations regarding the weapons they have. The armaments and subjective realities that have to be critically considered at any time one bridges the area of war and peace. The issues facilitate the prevalence of fear and examine the ideas of trust (Doyle 131). Thus, several scholars have developed various ideologies of IR to explain the security dilemmas, which were the aftermath of the World Wars (Fromkin 299). The current essay outlines the security dilemmas with realism perspective to determine the effective approach to peace.
Realism notion of IR considers the appropriation of military power in the global system as the primary driver of security dilemma (Doyle 117). The important implication emanates from the idea that if one nation possesses defensive or aggressive military precautions, the neighbouring countries become fearful. The strategic military competence of the superior states causes the weaker nations to lose trust, as the stronger nations would become even more powerful. The situations of state’s army preparedness generate security risks for other countries. The circumstance increases the security dilemma because the existential nations face fighting over security controls; however, in the end, no country feels protected (Doyle 124). Most of the nations also feel vulnerable as they will be in the stiff rivalry for the higher security measures, such as weapons, infantries, intelligence, etc. Furthermore, the realism notion distinguishes the international system as functioning on the basis of lawlessness. In other words, states lack the final arbitrator to resolve international security disputes, including the civil wars (Doyle 129). Since the existing democratic nations do not have an ideal global government to address the political conflicts, the weaker states have developed discomfort with their security measures. Additionally, the realist hypothesis maintains that the status of anarchy regards safety as the ultimate accountability of the nations. Since other political institutions are more concerned about their survival rather than the overall security of the states, there will be a struggle for dominance in the international system. The phenomenon can cause security dilemma (Doyle 136). The contention will mostly progress to a point at which the contending institutions have accumulated more control than is required for the state security. Hence, the entities will gradually start to threaten the developing nations. Thus, the countries feeling endangered will react to a threat. A situation can promote the current security dilemma.
Comparative state power is challenging to measure and is evaluated by the nation in control, leaving the closest states unaware of its real intention (Doyle 136). The statement implies that what appears adequate to a particular country’s defence strategy, may look offensive to other states. Moreover, since most of the adjacent nations aspire to remain sovereign and protected, they will respond to military arms by attempting to secure their security positions. The nations can also have armament responses even if they lack any form of imperialism capabilities (Doyle 141). The approach reveals another security dilemma in the sense that a nation practices to strengthen their own safety system. The aspect creates reactions that can make other states feel insecure. The alliance among nations to stop the security and defence competition can be problematic, since states that reveal their security measures will in effect be in a vulnerable position (Doyle 136). The powerful countries also fear to betray one another by revealing their weaponry defence if at all they are benefitting from one another. The statespersons are unaware that the security problem is existential, and probably some ignore the situation (Doyle 141). Likewise, they do not communicate with their affected neighbourhood states and because of the unspoken conflict. The lawmakers are uninformed that their actions can appear destructive to other nations. The ignorance practice of the public officials creates mistrust between once cooperating states in the effect causing fear, which results in the security crisis.
The security dilemma is prevalent when offensive and defensive conditions persist. The realists emphasize that when attacking and defensive armed forces are identical, nations find it challenging to identify their real military motive (Doyle 143). Similarly, the states face the problem with recognizing their absolute objectives in the military forces for strengthening the border security. The realist approach reveals that any combatant force is suited for offensive war campaigns. A compelling example is the fact that many statespersons consider the military to be the ideal offensive strategy. However, armed nations find it hard to determine one another’s military purpose. Another security dilemma can emerge from the efficiency of the armed force attack against the defence (Doyle 149). The condition suggests that if offensive exercises are more efficient than the deterrence activities, the nations will opt for offensive operations if they want to survive in the event of war. The phenomenon may promote a preventive war, especially during the political catastrophe. The motivation is that the recognized military power of the offensive states creates a psychological inducement to attack first in battle. Additionally, in cases where the offensive potentiality is superior, significant number of armed forces will seem likely to provide high hopes for the military triumph (Doyle 151). Consequently, the offensive benefit of the superior nations can become the origin of the precautionary war, especially if the nation has a military edge.
The obstacles to cooperation in the world politics facilitate the security problems, which arise as the governing bodies fall in multi-ethnic states (Doyle 154). As a result, the condition of uneasiness affects relations among the cooperative nations, similarly to disrupting communication patterns within the multi-cultural groups. Since the groups have a further issue of developing new state structures from the remains of fell dynasties, they are vulnerable in regard to maintaining IR with other superior states (Doyle 132). The notable approach indicates that the process of nations collapse generates circumstances, which cause the offensive and defensive state’s competence to appear alike but make the offensive strategy a preferred option. Additionally, the unbalanced process in the development of the nation’s structures can create multi-ethnic opportunities and vulnerability. The nations’ aspect might have a strong effect on the likelihood of conflict, despite the internal politics of the multi-cultural groups arising from the old dynasties (Doyle 134). Notably, the realists are inclined to have the assumption that the conflict lies elsewhere. For instance, the problem might originate from the distinct nature of the cultural group’s identities or in the temporary approach of the elected leaders to safeguard their power. The politics need to negotiate the security dilemma and its effects on the state (Doyle 136).
How it works
Step 1Visit our website and go to the order form
Step 2Fill in specific essay details in your order description section
Step 3Pay for your custom essay and get your order verified
Step 4Process of writing your academic assignment
Step 5Editing and anti-plagiarism check
Step 6On-time delivery of an already written essay
Realism influence on the fall of the balance of power among the developing states is another fundamental logic of the current security dilemma. Predominantly, the realists assert that the balance of authority is the outcome of political negotiation and the natural tendency of states (Doyle 139). They also consider it crucial since all governing states stand at the corresponding political level within the proposed balance of power. Furthermore, if a particular nation becomes too powerful, other counties will get concerned and start uniting to oppose the usurpation of power. For instance, the alliance of superior Germany and Italy affected the balance of power in Eurasia (Fromkin 83). Germany also strengthened the position with the advancement of weaponry technology that completely changed the balance of power. It purchased numerous battleships, capable submarines and increased its military forces in comparison to its neighbouring states. The consequence was the shift in the balance of power (Fromkin 303). Thus, the German’s political and military superiority seen as the problem to the balance of power is regarded as the principal cause of the outbreak of the First World War (Fromkin 306). Importantly, if Germany had not disrupted the balance of power, then the First World War perhaps would have been strategically avoided. The realists also maintain that it is important for the developing states to revive a demanding balance of power in case one is affected (Doyle 140). The decisive measure will assist in monitoring the international states and keeping them in check rather than erupting the militarily competition.
The emergence of dominant states after the events of the Second World War is an additional explanation of security dilemma. In the aftermath of the Soviet Union downfall and the culmination of the Cold War, the global system stopped being a bipolar system and developed into a unipolar system (Doyle 159). The measure allowed the United States to be the only legitimate international power. Since the realism considers the rationale of security dilemma is the result of the influence of military expansion of one state; the US would try to avoid the rise of any potential regional powers to maintain its state (Doyle 162). The situation forces the weaker countries to develop other strength to survive in the international politics. Even though the approach is seen as dangerous, the realists accept it since the costs of fighting a powerful state exceed the potential returns (Doyle 164). The approach also requires the smaller states to place confidence in powerful alternative states, which creates anxiety in the hegemonic nation contributing to the security dilemma.
In conclusion, the realism notion is important for explanations of the security dilemmas in the modern states. The allocation of the military influence in the international system is the compelling cause of the security problems among the nations. Therefore, a single state having superior defensive or attacking military force causes other countries to be fearful about the international security. Additionally, the power of the superior states is complex to measure, and evaluation is conducted by the domineering states leaving the weaker regions in the dilemma of its real motives. The security problem is also existential when both the offensive and defensive military actions of the dominant states are utilized. The challenges of nations’ alliance in the world politics also contribute to the current security problems with the outcome of the collapse of the multi-ethnic states. The fall of the balance of power and rise of commanding state further provides a distinct logic to the security crisis in the international arena. Thus, both the weaker and superior states should adopt effective political strategies to resolve security crisis and embrace peace. The relevant bodies should assess the weapons regarded as indistinguishable before empowering the states to use them. Moreover, the balance of power among nations should be re-evaluated, and stringent measures need to be applied to ones that break it. Consequently, the states should adopt both social determinants and liberal peace to resolve the security challenges. Hopefully, the developing nations will live in peace and harmony.