Security dilemma

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." 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." Thus the dilemma: directly and indirectly, both strength and weakness can upset the balance of security in international relations. This holds true with both offensive anrd defensive weapons as the Soviet–US ABM Treaty illustrates: though the anti-ballistic missiles are purely defensive for one, it still weakens the efficiency of any other hostile state's ability to retaliate.

This concept is also referred to as the spiral model. This term is used in international relations and refers to a situation in which actions by a state intended to heighten its security, such as increasing its military strength or making alliances, can lead other states to respond with similar measures, producing increased tensions that create conflict, even when no side really desires it.

The term was coined by the German scholar John H. Herz in his 1951 book Political Realism and Political Idealism. At the same time British historian Herbert Butterfield described the same situation in his History and Human Relations, but referred to it as the "absolute predicament and irreducible dilemma." In John Herz's words, the security dilemma is "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 for others as each interprets its own measures as defensive and measures of others as potentially threatening."

A frequently cited example of the security dilemma is the beginning of World War I. Supporters of this viewpoint argue that the major European powers felt forced to go to war by feelings of insecurity over the alliances of their neighbors, despite not actually desiring the war. Furthermore, Germany's fear of fighting war on two fronts led it to the formulation of the infamous Schlieffen Plan, which specified a particularly accelerated mobilization timetable. The onset of German mobilization, in turn, put pressure on other states to start mobilizing early as well. However, other scholars dispute this interpretation of the origins of the war, contending that some of the states involved really did want the conflict.

The security dilemma is a popular concept with cognitive and international relations theorists, who regard war as essentially arising from failures of communication. Functionalist theorists affirm that the key to avoiding war is the avoidance of miscommunication through proper signaling.

The security dilemma has important relationships with other theories and doctrines of international security. Part of the strength of the security dilemma theory is that it subsumes and is consistent with a number of other theories. Other theories can be considered in terms of the security dilemma.

Defensive realism
The security dilemma is the core assumption of defensive realism. According to Waltz because the world does not have a common government (it is "anarchic"), survival is the main motive of states. States are distrustful of other states' intentions and as a consequence always try to maximize their own security; this results in the situation of the security dilemma. Offense-defense theory of defensive realism is a potential theory to explain the level of threat arising from the security dilemma. Defensive realists often regard the success of the USA in WWI as being a result of the defensive approach taken by the US. Had the US taken an offensive stance, defensive realists argue that the US would not have been secure. The conclusion from defensive realism is that in some circumstances states can escape the security dilemma.

Offensive realism
Offensive realism and defensive realism are variants of structural realism. They share the basic beliefs of survivalism, statism (state as the primary unit), self-help and anarchy. (See international relations theory.) However, contrary to defensive realism, offensive realism regards states as aggressive power maximizers and not as security maximizers. According to Mearsheimer, "Uncertainty about the intentions of other states is unavoidable, which means that states can never be sure that other states do not have offensive intentions to go along with their offensive capabilities." According to Mearsheimer, though achieving hegemony by any state is not likely in today's international system, there is no such thing as a status quo and "the world is condemned to perpetual great power competition."

On the belief that the international system is Anarchic and that each State must independently seek its own survival, Waltz argues that weaker states try to find a balance with their rivals and to form an alliance with a stronger state to obtain a guarantee of security against offensive action by an enemy state. On the other hand, Mearsheimer and other offensive realists argue that Anarchy encourages all states to always increase their own power because one state can never be sure of other states' intentions. In other words, defensive realism contends that security can be balanced in some cases and that the security dilemma is escapable. While offensive realists do not disagree, they do not agree fully with the defensive view instead contending that if states can gain an advantage over other states then they will do so. In short, since states want to maximize their power in this anarchic system and since states cannot trust one another, the security dilemma is inescapable.

Offense-defense theory
The offense-defense theory of Robert Jervis helps decide the intensity of the security dilemma. Jervis's theory is prominent in the international security literature. Jervis uses four scenarios to describe the intensity of the security dilemma.


 * When offensive and defensive behaviour are not distinguishable but offense has an advantage – The security dilemma is "very intense". The environment is "doubly dangerous". Status quo states will behave in an aggressive manner and there will arise the possibility of an arms race. Chances of cooperation between states are low.
 * Where offensive and defensive behaviour are not distinguishable but defense has an advantage – The security dilemma is "intense" in explaining states' behaviour but not as intense as in the first case. In such situation, a state might be able to increase its security without being a threat to other states and without endangering the security of other states.
 * Where offensive and defensive behaviour are distinguishable but offense has an advantage – The security dilemma is "not intense" though security issues do exist. Though the environment is safe, offensive behaviour has an advantage which might result in aggression at some future time.
 * Where offensive and defensive behaviour are distinguishable and defense has advantage – The security dilemma has little or no intensity. The environment is "doubly safe". Since there is little danger of offensive action by other states, a state would be able to expend some of its defense budget and other resources on useful development within the state.

According to Robert Jervis, the technical capabilities of a state and its geographical position are two essential factors in deciding whether offensive or defensive action is advantageous. According to Jervis, at a strategic level technical and geographical factors are of greater favour to the defender. For example, in the 19th century railway and roads construction were rapidly changing the composition of capabilities of states to attack or defend themselves from other states. Thus, considerable effort in diplomatic relations and intelligence were specifically focused on this issue.

The spiral model identifies the next step in reasoning about states' behaviour after identifying the intensity of the security dilemma. In particular, under given circumstances of the security dilemma, what steps might a threatened state take to derive advantage by attacking first. In other words, the spiral model seeks to explain war. In the spiral model of Robert Jervis, there are two reasons why a state might end up in war. "Preventative war" might take place as one state might decide to attack first when it perceives the balance of power shifting to the other side creating an advantage in attacking sooner rather than later as conditions may not be as favourable in the future as in the present. "Preemptive war" might take place as a state might decide to attack another state first to prevent the other state from attacking or to obstruct the other state's attack because it fears the other state is preparing to attack.

The deterrence model is contrary to the spiral model, but also purports to explain war.While the spiral model presumes that states are fearful of each other, the deterrence model is based on the belief that states are greedy. Paul K. Huth divides deterrence into three main types:


 * Preventing armed attack against a country's own territory ("direct deterrence")
 * Preventing armed attack against the territory of another country ("extended deterrence")
 * Using deterrence against a short-term threat of attack ("immediate deterrence").

"Under some circumstances attempts at deterrence can "backfire" when a potential attacker misinterprets the state's deterrence measures as a "prelude to offensive measures". In such cases the security dilemma can arise generating perceptions of a "first strike advantage". According to Huth "most effective deterrence policies are those that decrease the expected utility of using force while not reducing the expected utility of the status quo; optimally deterrent policies would even increase the utility of not using the force." It is more likely that deterrence will succeed if the attacker finds deterrence threat "credible" and a credible deterrence threat might not necessarily be a military threat.

According to Robert Jervis, the security dilemma can lead to arms races and alliance formation.

Arms race
According to Robert Jervis, since the world is anarchic, a state might, for defensive purposes, build its military capability. However, since states are not aware of each other's intentions, other states might interpret a defensive buildup as offensive; if so and if offensive action against the state which is actually only building its defenses is advantageous, then those other states might prefer to take an aggressive stance. This will "make the situation unstable". In such situation, an arms race may become a strong possibility. Robert Jervis gives the example of Germany and Britain before WWI. "Much of the behaviour in this period was the product of technology and beliefs that magnified the security dilemma." In this example, strategists believed that offense would be more advantageous than defense, even though this ultimately turned out to not be the case. Competition on nuclear weapons construction between the US and USSR during the Cold War is a well-known example of an arms race.

Alliance formation
The security dilemma might force states to form new alliances or to strengthen existing alliances. "If offense has less advantage, stability and cooperation are likely". According to Glenn H. Snyder, under a security dilemma there are two reasons that alliances will form. First, a state that is dissatisfied with the amount of security it has forms alliances in order to bolster its security. Second, a state is in doubt about the reliability of existing allies in coming to its aid, and thus decides to court another ally or allies. According to Thomas Christensen and Jack Snyder, in a multipolar world two types of alliance dilemma exist which are contrary in nature. These alliance dilemmas are known as chain ganging and buck passing.

Chain ganging
In a multipolar world, alliance security is interconnected. When one ally decides to participate in war, it pulls its alliance partners into the war too, which is referred to as chain ganging. If the partner does not participate in the war fully, it will endanger the security of its ally. For example, in WWI due to the alliance between Austria-Hungary and Germany, according to Waltz, "If Austria-Hungary marched, Germany had to follow: the dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire would have left Germany alone in the middle of Europe". On the other side, if "France marched, Russia had to follow; a German victory over France would be a defeat for Russia. And so it was all around the vicious circle, because the defeat or defection of a major alliance would have shaken the balance, each alliance partner would have shaken the balance, each state was constrained to adjust its strategy".

Buck-Passing
In the face of a rising threat, balancing alignments fail to form in a timely fashion because states try to ride free on other states. States might do this to avoid the expense of war for themselves. For example, to use Waltz's example, in WWII the French Foreign Minister told the British Prime Minister that Britain was justified in taking "the lead in opposing Germany" when the Nazis had taken over the Rhineland. "As the German threat grew" French and Britain hoped that Germany and Russia "would balance each other off or fight to the finish. Uncertainties about … who will gain or lose from the action of other states accelerate as number of states increases."

Criticisms of the security dilemma and responses
According to Wendt, "Security dilemmas are not given by anarchy or nature" but, rather, are "a social structure composed of intersubjective understandings in which states are so distrustful that they make worst-case assumptions about each other's intentions".

Glaser argues that Wendt mischaracterised the security dilemma. "Wendt is using the security dilemma to describe the result of states' interaction whereas Jervis and the literature he has spawned use the security dilemma to refer to a situation created by the material conditions facing states, such as geography and prevailing technology". According to Wendt because the security dilemma is the result of one state's interaction with another, a state can adopt policies which hinder the security dilemma. Glaser blames Wendt for "exaggerating the extent to which structural realism calls for competitive policies and, therefore, the extent to which it leads to security dilemmas". Glaser argues that though offensive realists presume that in an international system a state has to compete for power, the security dilemma is a concept mainly used by defensive realists and according to defensive realists it is beneficial for nations to cooperate under certain circumstances.

Another mode of criticism of the security dilemma concept is to question the validity of the offence-defense balance. Since weapons of offense and of defense are the same, how can the distinction between the two be connected with a state's intentions? As a result, critics have questioned whether the offense-defense balance can be used as a variable in explaining international conflicts. According to Glaser, criticisms of the offense-defense balance are based on two misunderstandings. First, the sameness or difference of offensive weapons compared with defensive weapons does not impact the offense-defense balance itself. Offense-defense theory assumes that both parties in conflict will use those weapons that suit their strategy and goals. Second, whether both states involved in the conflict have some common weapons between them is the wrong question to ask in seeking to understand the offense-defense balance. Instead, critics should focus on the influence or net effect of weapons used in the conflict. According to Glaser, "Distinguishability should be defined by comparative net assessment" or the comparison of the balance of offense-defense when both sides use weapons versus when neither side is using weapons.