Understanding International Relations, Third Edition

partial missile defence for the US would be purely defensive in intent,
Power and Security
93

---

designed to deter attacks from ‘rogue’ states, but, if effective, such a sys-
tem would render less credible Russian and Chinese deterrent forces and
probably stimulate them to upgrade their systems, in turn increasing US
anxiety, and so on.
This is a security dilemma rather than, for example, a simple mistake,
because no one is behaving unreasonably or making unreasonable assump-
tions. It might, in fact, be a mistake to perceive hostility where there is none,
but it is a reasonable mistake; better safe than sorry. There are too many
historical examples of states not reacting in time, taking overt intentions as a
reason for ignoring capability enhancements, and suffering as a result, for this
possibility to be ignored. We do not have access to the intentions of states –
we can only see their capabilities and work back from these. It is in the nature
of the ‘self-help’ system in which states exist that they are likely to take a pes-
simistic view of the world, even in an international society. National leaders
consider themselves to have a responsibility to their populations to be
cautious and prudent and not to turn a blind eye to potential threats.
The idea of the security dilemma can be taken too far to imply that all
international insecurity stems from some such process of reaction and
overreaction. There seems no reason to hold to such a view. Sometimes
states do have hostile intentions towards each other, in which case reacting
to a build-up of capabilities is a sensible move. But the point is that even in
a world largely composed of states which do not have any hostile intent,
and which make rational, calculated decisions about their place in the
world, insecurity is still endemic. Anarchy is anarchy even in an anarchical
society – the existential situation of sovereign states coexisting in a world
without government is inherently insecure and dangerous.