A data-based analysis of how and why the long peace of the Cold War occurred. The analysis tests a proposition originally suggested by Senese and Vasquez (2008) that alliance polarization played an important role in producing the long peace, because in the 1816–1945 and post-Cold War periods, both sides having outside alliances was positively associated with the escalation of a militarized interstate dispute (MID) to war and in the Cold War it was negatively related. New hypotheses are derived to test this claim. Tests of two hypotheses support the claim that alliance polarization played a key role in the long peace, even when controlling for the presence of nuclear weapons.
AzarE (1972) Conflict escalation and conflict reduction in an international crisis: Suez, 1956. Journal of Conflict Studies16(June): 183–201.
2.
BatcherRT (2004) The consequences of an Indo-Pakistani Nuclear War. International Studies Review6(December): 135–162.
3.
BlackmanMPuchalaDJ (1991) When empires meet: the long peace in long-term perspective. In: KegleyCJr (ed.) The Long Postwar Peace. New York: HarperCollins, pp. 177–201.
4.
BrecherMWilkenfeldJ (1991) International crises and global instability: the myth of the ‘long peace’. In: KegleyCJr (ed.) The Long Postwar Peace. New York: HarperCollins, pp. 85–104.
5.
ColaresiMPRaslerKThompsonWR (2007) Strategic Rivalries in World Politics: Position, Space, and Conflict Escalation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
DiehlPGoertzG (2000) War and Peace in International Rivalry. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
7.
FarrW (1999) The third temple’s holy of holies: Israel’s nuclear weapons. The Counterproliferation papers. Future Warfare Series no. 2, September. Montgomery, AL: Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base.
8.
GaddisJL (1986) The long peace: elements of stability in the postwar international system. International Security10: 99–142.
9.
GellerD (2005) The India–Pakistan rivalry: prospects for war, prospects for peace. In: PaulTV (ed.) The India–Pakistan Conflict: An Enduring Rivalry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 80–102.
GhosnFPalmerGBremerSA (2004) The MID3 data set, 1993–2001: procedures, coding rules, and description. Conflict Management and Peace Science21(Summer): 133–154.
12.
GiblerDM (2009) International Military Alliances: 1648–2008. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
13.
GiblerDMSarkeesMR (2004) Measuring alliances: the correlates of war formal interstate alliance dataset, 1816–2000. Journal of Peace Research41(March): 211–222.
14.
GilpinR (1989) The theory of hegemonic war. In: RothbergRRabbT (eds.) The Origin and Prevention of Major Wars. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 15–37.
JonesDBremerSASingerJD (1996) Militarized interstate disputes, 1816–1992: rationale, coding rules, and empirical patterns. Conflict Management and Peace Science15: 163–213.
18.
KahnH (1968) On Escalation: Metaphors and Scenarios. Rev. ed.Baltimore, MD: Penguin.
19.
KangCN (2012) Alliances: path to peace or path to war? In: VasquezJA (ed.) What Do We Know about War?2nd ed.Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, pp. 27–44.
20.
KapurA (2005) Major powers and the persistence of the India–Pakistan conflict. In: PaulTV (ed.) The India–Pakistan Conflict: An Enduring Rivalry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 131–155.
21.
KegleyCJr (1991) The Long Postwar Peace. New York: HarperCollins.
22.
KerrPKNikitinMB (2010) Pakistan’s nuclear weapons: proliferation and security issues. Congressional Research Service, 7October. Available at: http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/169328.pdf (accessed 8 January 2011).
23.
LebowRN (1981) Between Peace and War: The Nature of International Crisis. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
24.
LevyJS (1991) Long cycles, hegemonic transitions, and the long peace. In: KegleyCJr (ed.) The Long Postwar Peace. New York: HarperCollins, pp. 147–176.
25.
MansbachRWVasquezJA (1981) In Search of Theory: A New Paradigm for Global Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
26.
MorgenthauHJ (1960) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace. 3rd ed.New York: Knopf.
27.
MuellerJE (1988) The essential irrelevance of nuclear weapons: stability in the post war world. International Security13(Fall): 55–79.
28.
MuellerJE (2010) Atomic Obsession: From Hiroshima to Al-Qaeda. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
29.
NyeJSJr (1987) Nuclear learning and U.S.–Soviet security regimes. International Organization41(Summer): 371–402.
30.
SampleSG (2002) The outcomes of military buildups: minor states vs. major powers. Journal of Peace Research39: 669–692.
31.
SchroederPW (1976) Alliances, 1815–1945: weapons of power and tools of management. In: KnorrK (ed.) Historical Dimensions of National Security Problems. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, pp. 227–262.
32.
SchroederPW (2006) The life and death of a long peace, 1763–1914. In: VäyrynenR (ed.) The Waning of Major War: Theories and Debates. London: Routledge, pp. 33–63.
33.
SenesePDVasquezJA (2008) The Steps to War: An Empirical Study. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
SingerJD (1991) Peace in the global system: displacement, interregnum, or transformation? In: KegleyC (ed.) The Long Postwar Peace. New York: HarperCollins, pp. 56–84.
35.
SiversonRMWardMD (2002) The long peace: a reconsideration. International Organization56 (Summer): 679–691.
36.
VasquezJA (1991) The deterrence myth: nuclear weapons and the prevention of Nuclear War. In: KegleyCJr (ed.) The Long Postwar Peace. New York: HarperCollins, pp. 205–223.
37.
VasquezJA (1993) The War Puzzle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
WallensteenP (1984) Universalism vs. particularism: on the limits of major power order. Journal of Peace Research21(3): 243–257.
39.
WaltzKN (1979) Theory of International Politics. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
40.
WaltzKN (1981) The spread of nuclear weapons: more may be better. Adelphi paper 171. London: International Institute of International Studies.
