18 Questions
What is the strategy where a state tries to weaken its rivals by provoking a long and costly war between them?
Bait and bleed
What strategy involves ensuring that any war in which an adversary is involved is protracted and deadly?
Bloodletting
Which strategy involves seriously committing to containing a dangerous opponent?
Balancing
What strategy involves trying to get another great power to check the aggressor while remaining on the sidelines?
Buck-passing
Why do threatened states usually prefer buck-passing to balancing?
To avoid the costs of fighting the aggressor in case of war
Why are the strategies of appeasement and bandwagoning not particularly useful for dealing with aggressors?
They involve conceding power to a rival state
What is the main logic behind the strategy of buck-passing in international relations?
The more powerful a threatened state is, the less likely it is that an aggressor will attack it.
Why must a buck-catcher still have the capability to contain an aggressor even without the buck-passer's help?
To ensure that the buck-catcher can stand alone against the aggressor if needed.
What is one reason why states build formidable military forces for prophylactic reasons?
To be prepared in case they catch the buck and have to stand alone against an aggressor.
During the 1930s, why could neither France nor the Soviet Union be certain about their security against Nazi Germany?
They could not be sure they would not catch the buck and have to stand alone against the aggressor.
What is the insurance policy that a state might adopt in case buck-passing fails?
Improving its defenses as a precautionary measure.
Explain a scenario where it makes sense for a buck-passer to allow the growth in power of the intended buck-catcher.
To increase the buck-passer's prospects of remaining on the sidelines by strengthening the burden-bearer.
What is the main difference between buck-passing and bait and bleed strategies?
Buck-passing is a deterrence strategy with war-fighting as the default option, while bait and bleed purposely aims to provoke a war.
Explain why appeasement and bandwagoning are not considered viable strategies for survival according to the text.
Both appeasement and bandwagoning involve conceding power to an aggressor, which violates balance-of-power logic and increases the danger to the state employing them.
What happens in bandwagoning when a state joins forces with a more powerful opponent?
The weaker state concedes that the stronger state will gain a disproportionate share of the spoils they conquer together, shifting the power balance further against the bandwagoner.
How do both buck-passing and bait and bleed strategies risk failure?
Both strategies can fail if one of the combatants wins a quick and decisive victory.
In the context of strategies for survival, why should great powers neither appease nor bandwagon with their adversaries?
Appeasement and bandwagoning involve conceding power to an aggressor, which is detrimental to a state's survival.
Explain why balancing and buck-passing are considered more suitable strategies for threatened states according to the text.
Balancing and buck-passing are preferred as they do not involve conceding power to an aggressor, aligning with balance-of-power logic and enhancing the state's security.
Explore the similarities and differences between buck-passing and bait-and-bleed strategies in terms of power dynamics, potential outcomes, and underlying objectives. Understand how these strategies influence deterrence and war-fighting approaches.
Make Your Own Quizzes and Flashcards
Convert your notes into interactive study material.
Get started for free
