國立高雄大學圖資館 |

登入

回首頁

Power vs. threat :Explanations of United States balancing against the Soviet Union after 1976

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Power vs. threat :
其他題名:	Explanations of United States balancing against the Soviet Union after 1976
作者:	Davis, Carmel.
面頁冊數:	241 p.
附註:	Adviser: Avery Goldstein.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 65-03, Section: A, page: 1093.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International65-03A.
標題:	Political Science, General.
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3125804
ISBN:	0496730932

Power vs. threat :Explanations of United States balancing against the Soviet Union after 1976
Davis, Carmel.

Power vs. threat :Explanations of United States balancing against the Soviet Union after 1976 [electronic resource] - 241 p.

Adviser: Avery Goldstein.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Pennsylvania, 2004.

Balance of power ("power") and balance of threat ("threat") provide competing, but related, explanations of balancing. Which better explains balancing? Power in conditions of bipolarity expects that the two powers will engage in balancing that will produce a balance in which each is capable of a defending its vital interests. A change in the military capability of one sufficient to affect the ability of the other to defend its interests with good prospects for success will cause balancing by the other. Threat differs in its expectation that a great power with military capability at least sufficient for a high-confidence defense in all contested theaters will balance if it perceives that the other country has aggressive intentions, defined as a high propensity to attempt to compel it that may involve initiation of war for gain or acceptance of the risk that initiation of compellence may lead to war. Fearing its military capability is insufficient to dissuade such a country, it increases its military capability.

ISBN: 0496730932Subjects--Topical Terms:

212408
Political Science, General.

Power vs. threat :Explanations of United States balancing against the Soviet Union after 1976
LDR:03131nmm _2200313 _450 001 162487
005 20051017073451.5
008 230606s2004 eng d
020 $a 0496730932
035 $a 00148988
035 $a 162487
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 0 $a Davis, Carmel. $3 227628
245 1 0 $a Power vs. threat : $b Explanations of United States balancing against the Soviet Union after 1976 $h [electronic resource]
300 $a 241 p.
500 $a Adviser: Avery Goldstein.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 65-03, Section: A, page: 1093.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Pennsylvania, 2004.
520 # $a Balance of power ("power") and balance of threat ("threat") provide competing, but related, explanations of balancing. Which better explains balancing? Power in conditions of bipolarity expects that the two powers will engage in balancing that will produce a balance in which each is capable of a defending its vital interests. A change in the military capability of one sufficient to affect the ability of the other to defend its interests with good prospects for success will cause balancing by the other. Threat differs in its expectation that a great power with military capability at least sufficient for a high-confidence defense in all contested theaters will balance if it perceives that the other country has aggressive intentions, defined as a high propensity to attempt to compel it that may involve initiation of war for gain or acceptance of the risk that initiation of compellence may lead to war. Fearing its military capability is insufficient to dissuade such a country, it increases its military capability.
520 # $a Three observable implications allow a test of power and threat as explanations of US balancing in the late-1970s: sufficiency of US general purpose and strategic forces, US wartime prospects, and US assessments of Soviet intentions. The increasing insufficiency of US military capability and perceptions that the US did not have good wartime prospects means that increases in US capability are readily explained by power. It also means that the condition of threat that the US had sufficient military capability in all contested theaters is not satisfied and threat's additional element of aggressive intentions is not required. Finally, there was not a dominant perception among US leaders that the Soviet Union was attempting to compel the US so a critical positive expectation of threat is not satisfied. I conclude that power provides the better explanation. I address Walt's argument that the US was more powerful than the Soviet Union and three appendices consider economic elements of power and military expenditures.
590 $a School code: 0175.
650 # 0 $a Political Science, General. $3 212408
650 # 0 $a Political Science, International Law and Relations. $3 212542
650 # 0 $a History, United States. $3 212533
650 # 0 $a History, Modern. $3 209516
690 $a 0337
690 $a 0582
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0616
710 0 # $a University of Pennsylvania. $3 212781
773 0 # $g 65-03A. $t Dissertation Abstracts International
790 $a 0175
790 1 0 $a Goldstein, Avery, $e advisor
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2004
856 4 0 $u http://libsw.nuk.edu.tw/login?url=http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3125804 $z http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3125804