Compare And Contrast Balancing With Deterrence
1). Compare and contrast balancing with deterrence – how are these means of responding to threats similar and different? Balance and deterrence are similar in some ways, however, I feel that they are mostly different. They are similar in that they both try to stop one state from taking over the world. However, deterrence could make the globe unipolar if nobody attacks one state because of that state issuing serious threats. This could make that state extremely powerful. Balance and deterrence are different in that balance contains states possibly allying with one another, along with the bandwagon theory. When a state uses deterrence, they are not allying with another state, more so they are threatening them. Nye & Welch
2). How would you …show more content…
The main policy in collective security is that if states are allying with each other, and one state tries to be violently aggressive against those other states, those states can use violence against the aggressor. People who support collective security are extremely against war and violence and feel that you should only use violence if you are protecting yourself.
3). Why did the first attempt at collective security (the League of Nations) fail? The League of Nations failed because this system right after war wouldn’t work. After war, states want to keep their power and not let an international government take over. Another reason this didn’t work is because the creators (the US) didn’t join this. Wilson was trying to maintain peace along the world, and if his own state wouldn’t agree to it, this would create more violence and less peace. Although this did solve some issues at first, in the end states wouldn’t always ally and agree with each other.
4). What is containment and how is it similar to and different from …show more content…
What I mean by this is that with nuclear weapons, states have a reason to use violence, not just for the sake of it. For example, after the Pearl Harbor attack, the Americans retaliated on the Japanese by using these nuclear weapons. They did this for a reason, in order to ensure that the Japanese wouldn’t attack them again, which ensures their security. If a state uses nuclear deterrence against another state, the other state could be incentivized to make a weapon as strong or stronger than a nuclear weapon which could lead to even more violence and
2). How would you …show more content…
The main policy in collective security is that if states are allying with each other, and one state tries to be violently aggressive against those other states, those states can use violence against the aggressor. People who support collective security are extremely against war and violence and feel that you should only use violence if you are protecting yourself.
3). Why did the first attempt at collective security (the League of Nations) fail? The League of Nations failed because this system right after war wouldn’t work. After war, states want to keep their power and not let an international government take over. Another reason this didn’t work is because the creators (the US) didn’t join this. Wilson was trying to maintain peace along the world, and if his own state wouldn’t agree to it, this would create more violence and less peace. Although this did solve some issues at first, in the end states wouldn’t always ally and agree with each other.
4). What is containment and how is it similar to and different from …show more content…
What I mean by this is that with nuclear weapons, states have a reason to use violence, not just for the sake of it. For example, after the Pearl Harbor attack, the Americans retaliated on the Japanese by using these nuclear weapons. They did this for a reason, in order to ensure that the Japanese wouldn’t attack them again, which ensures their security. If a state uses nuclear deterrence against another state, the other state could be incentivized to make a weapon as strong or stronger than a nuclear weapon which could lead to even more violence and