The Security Dilemma

In the book Political Idealism and Political Realism, John H. Hertz explained security dilemma as a systematic view in which the self-help efforts of countries to address their security concerns, notwithstanding the intent, gravitate towards rising insecurity for others as each perceives its actions as defensive and measures of others as potentially harmful. It is under this assumption that sovereign states provide for their own security, and through which they are made to interact, primarily with military force. The paradox comes in that the same weapons that some countries use for their safety literally or potentially endanger the existence of their neighbors. Firearms are the consequential reality that sets up the security dilemma as they are intrinsically ambiguous objects (Acharya, & Ramsay, 2013).

A year later, President Harry Truman directed his scientists to start the study and procurement of the hydrogen bomb immediately. By November 1952, research and testing were already complete as all procedures were successful (Glaser, 2011). However, barely ten months later, the Soviet Union had also successfully developed its hydrogen bomb. At this point, it was clear that the two nations were in stiff competition, mostly out of the fear that one would be the first to strike the other. Alternatively, the two nations tried to fight each other silently by signing pacts with allies. The Cold War presents a perfect example because, at that time, the U. S and the Soviet Union were the most powerful nation. The second aspect of the security dilemma is that it immediately leads to the state’s fears and uncertainty about each other’s desire to destroy because of anarchy.

In such a situation, if a country builds arms and openly declares that it is ready to go to war, that is not a security dilemma (Gordeeva, 2016). The third aspect is that state’s means of seeking to avoid the security dilemma is by assembling more power, which will generate a sequence of contention. No matter how powerful they may be, the other aspects cannot make a case a genuine security dilemma. Reliant on the in-depth perspective provided above, scholars are now able to create a reliable link between the events that lead to a security dilemma. First, the truth is that the shift from anarchy to the security dilemma, and eventually to war is a complicated process and not as routine as it appears (Booth, & Wheeler, 2008).

Therefore, the whole process goes through the following channel; anarchy builds uncertainty, uncertainty converts into fear, fear creates room for power competition, power competition triggers an inactive security dilemma, and the triggered security dilemma culminates into war through an axis. The recent ascendancy of Trump to the US highest office and his Americentric and aggressive appeal to military operations will indisputably generate worry and unease among other nations and afterward evoke the strengthening of the other countries military capabilities. What matters is that governments should understand that security is not absolute and that security efforts from one side can cause fear of harm in others. The upgrade of security capabilities should, therefore, be open and performed through the required standards set internationally.