Talk:Brinkmanship
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Brinkmanship is part of the Cold War WikiProject, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Cold War on the Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to the people, places, things, and events, and anything else associated with the Cold War. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Contents |
[edit] Edited 14 April 2006
I stopped by the brinkmanship article and have made two changes; the first was to add a note that threats must be backed up at some point to retain credibility (under the 'dangers' heading), the second was to completely eliminate the 'types of brinkmanship' subsection.
I found that subsection to be irrelevant to this article, as it does little other than repeat itself and vaguely reference Kennedy. The section is pasted below for consideration (if you can make heads or tails of it, or find something useful in it, let me know) --
[edit] Types of Brinkmanship
The escalation of wars of words, especially in international politics, is frequently referred to as brinkmanship. For instance, the Japanese history textbook controversies is an example of brinkmanship.
In game theory terms, Brinkmanship is a type of threat. As in all game theory threats, the question of credibility arises. Will you carry out the threat if I do not cave in to your desires? Note that some threats are so huge that they carry very little credibility. There is every reason to doubt that Kennedy would want to start a nuclear war which makes this threat less useful.
Brinkmanship is a game theory technique to make giant threats more credible. You do not threaten the certainty of nuclear war, but the possibility of one. As more and more people become involved in the crisis, it takes on a momentum of its own. The naval blockade of Cuba was an escalation that involved many more people into the decision making process. Also since a blockade is an aggressive action, the world moved further down a slippery slope where events could run out of control and result in events that no one wanted to happen.
By involving many more armed people in his blockade, Kennedy made his threat credible.
A union that threatens to strike (or a company that threatens a lockout) is likewise involved in brinkmanship. Neither the union or management wishes to prevent the company from earning money but the posturing and tactics to make their positions stronger progressively make the strike more likely to happen.
End of edit. Wingchild 5:03, 15 Apr 2006 (UTC)
This page appears slightly unprofessional. The first person to find the time should fix it.
[edit] Edited on 15 June
I tried and the article by cutting largish incoherent and IMO irrelevant segments. I think the article is more neutral and encyclopaedic now. Of course, there's still room to improve, but I felt my changes warranted the removal of the clean-up tag.
Wempain 01:30, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Good edits, I just organized them, added a photo and a couple of links. --Inexplicable 17:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Kennedy
Kennedy is suddenly referred to without the as simply "fat." Probably something was deleted that would have made it make sense.
[edit] Brickmanship and dictators + fascists citation
I found a citations proving that fascists and dictators often use brinkmanship, but I am fairly new to Wikipedia article editing and I do not know how to cite multiple sources, or even cite sources. Help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowie1337 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Neutrality, Original research, weasel words
An anonymous editor tagged this article with loads of tags. Was this vandalism? if not, these concerns need to be explained here. Sam (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
