An eternal impossible problem/situation of the conflict variety
Suppose there is an ascending, aggressive appearing, nation emerging and building military might. Their threat is ominous though they assert no claims for territory are in their plans. The developments are only for defense. What is the response of the other nations? There are two.
- Type A. We should fortify this location or making alliances with nearby nations thereby hedging in this imminent threat, making clear our intent to delimit any strategies they may have, and demonstrating the severe cost to territorial ventures. Let us negotiate from strength.
- Type B. We should not fortify because it will anger and possibly even enhance their build-up making them more dangerous. It may even trigger a venture for territorial gain. Let us accept their word that they do not seek aggression with other nations. Let us negotiate from good will
The variations are what make this an impossible situation of unending proportions. Not unnoticed until now, knowledge of this historical dilemma is clearly implicit in calls to form federations and international organizations of nations. This impossible situation is of the multiple solutions variety, involving a conflict between often implacable players.
Related and leading to impossible situations are several methods by which Type A and Type B players come to their positions.
- To view the situation as it is wished to be, not as it is.
- To avoid making necessary decisions that are against foundational beliefs.
- To simplify a situation by the exclusion of information or because of inherent complexity.
- Over reliance on a single approach even when not appropriate.
Comments
Post a Comment
Please Comment.