Security dilemmas, alliances and cooperation

Answer

When one state's defensive build-up looks threatening to others, driving them to arm too, so all end up less secure — the pursuit of safety produces the opposite.

Answer

Because states can't be sure of each other's intentions, and a defensive weapon looks exactly like an offensive one, so each must assume the worst and respond in kind.

Answer

A spiral of competitive military build-up between rival states, where each side's arming triggers the other's, leaving all more armed but no more secure.

Answer

Preventing attack by making its cost unbearable — 'attack me and you'll suffer too', as with nuclear deterrence — which can keep the peace but rests on dangerous arsenals.

Answer

Agreements between states to defend one another, pooling strength so no single state faces a shared threat alone.

Answer

A system where an attack on one member is treated as an attack on all, raising the cost of aggression — the logic behind the UN and NATO.

Answer

Because an alliance formed for defence can look like encirclement to the state outside it, driving that state to arm or form a rival bloc.

Answer

Because your safety depends on how others read your actions — a build-up meant to reassure you can frighten a rival — so trust and reassurance matter as much as strength.

Answer

In an anarchic world you can't rely on goodwill, so credible deterrence and alliances protect you, and visible weakness can invite aggression.

Answer

Endless arming feeds the dilemma, so lasting security comes from breaking the spiral: arms control, transparency, reassurance and collective-security institutions.

Answer

Keep enough defensive strength for credible deterrence, but pair it with reassurance and cooperation to break the spiral — seek security with rivals, not only against them.