Final answer:
The Stability-Instability Paradox suggests that stable military balances may increase the risk of low-scale conflicts, as it is the paradoxical outcome when two countries achieve a stable military balance, potentially leading to smaller conflicts due to a sense of security under the nuclear deterrent effect.
Step-by-step explanation:
The Stability-Instability Paradox suggests that when two countries or blocs achieve stable military balance, such as through mutual deterrence during the Cold War, they may be more likely to engage in lower-level conflicts. This paradox implies that the deterrent effect of a secure and stable balance of nuclear capabilities (which will likely prevent large-scale wars for fear of mutual destruction) may embolden states to engage in smaller, proxy wars or skirmishes, believing that these will not escalate to full-scale nuclear war due to the stability provided by nuclear deterrence.
Therefore, the correct answer to the question is: C. Stable military balances may increase the risk of war. Different international relations theories, including realism and liberalism, attempt to address this paradox by analyzing how states behave under various conditions of power distribution, potential for conflict, and their attempts to preserve their security.
Political polarization and the dynamics of international relations are additional factors that can affect stability and conflict, as states navigate the complex landscape of cooperation and competition.