Stability–instability paradox
The stability–instability paradox is an international relations theory first developed by Glenn Snyder regarding the effect of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction. It states that when two countries each have nuclear weapons, the probability of a direct war between them greatly decreases, but the probability of minor or indirect conflicts between them increases.
Metadata
- Slug: 00423-stability-instability-paradox
- Type: PARADOX
- Tags: probability
- Sources: 1
Axioms
- Assume the rules of the domain apply uniformly.
- Assume the observer’s criteria remain fixed.
- Assume classification boundaries stay consistent.
- Assume the model describes the real case.
- Assume repeated steps do not change the outcome.
- Assume no hidden variables are introduced midstream.
Contradictions
- Two reasonable lines of inference yield opposite conclusions
- A global rule conflicts with a local judgment
- A stable resolution appears to violate a starting premise
- Changing the framing reverses the outcome
- Intuition and formalism diverge at the same step
Prompts
- Which assumption is doing the most hidden work?
- What changes if you relax the smallest constraint?
- Does the paradox dissolve or relocate when reframed?
- What is conserved, and what is sacrificed?
Notes
Sources
Overview
The stability–instability paradox is an international relations theory first developed by Glenn Snyder regarding the effect of nuclear weapons and mutually assured destruction. It states that when two countries each have nuclear weapons, the probability of a direct war between them greatly decreases, but the probability of minor or indirect conflicts between them increases.
Tension
- Two reasonable lines of inference yield opposite conclusions.
- A global rule conflicts with a local judgment.
- A stable resolution appears to violate a starting premise.
- Changing the framing reverses the outcome.
- Intuition and formalism diverge at the same step.
Why It Matters
This entry tests how a stable rule-set can yield unstable conclusions under certain assumptions.
Prompts
- Which assumption is doing the most hidden work?
- What changes if you relax the smallest constraint?
- Does the paradox dissolve or relocate when reframed?
- What is conserved, and what is sacrificed?