東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Power vs. threat: Explanations of U...

Davis, Carmel.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

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: Explanations of United States balancing against the Soviet Union after 1976./
作者:	Davis, Carmel.
面頁冊數:	241 p.
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. - 241 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 65-03, Section: A, page: 1093.

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:

1017391
Political Science, General.

Power vs. threat: Explanations of United States balancing against the Soviet Union after 1976.
LDR:03017nmm 2200313 4500 001 1844269
005 20051017073451.5
008 130614s2004 eng d
020 $a 0496730932
035 $a (UnM)AAI3125804
035 $a AAI3125804
040 $a UnM $c UnM
100 1 $a Davis, Carmel. $3 1932466
245 1 0 $a Power vs. threat: Explanations of United States balancing against the Soviet Union after 1976.
300 $a 241 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 65-03, Section: A, page: 1093.
500 $a Adviser: Avery Goldstein.
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 4 $a Political Science, General. $3 1017391
650 4 $a Political Science, International Law and Relations. $3 1017399
650 4 $a History, United States. $3 1017393
650 4 $a History, Modern. $3 516334
690 $a 0615
690 $a 0616
690 $a 0337
690 $a 0582
710 2 0 $a University of Pennsylvania. $3 1017401
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 65-03A.
790 1 0 $a Goldstein, Avery, $e advisor
790 $a 0175
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2004
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3125804