This article examines the role of mutual military buildups in dispute escalation to war. It is argued that the effect of the pervasive realist culture in the modern state system is to affect policy choices and perceptions in ways that alter the dynamics of militarized disputes when the countries are arming, thus raising the chance that war will be the outcome of the dispute. Previous tests of the connection between arming and escalation have been fraught with methodological controversy and have been inconclusive in their conclusions. By contrast, this study is multivariate; it incorporates other factors that might have a strong influence on arming, escalation, or both. The findings indicate that when those factors are considered (including the issue in contention, history of disputes, and relative defense burdens as well as relative power balance), preceding mutual military buildups are strongly and positively related to the likelihood of dispute escalation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Altfeld, Michael F.1983. Arms races? And escalation? A comment on Wallace. International Studies Quarterly27:225-231.
2.
Bremer, Stuart A.1992. Dangerous dyads: Conditions affecting the likelihood of interstate war, 1816-1965. Journal of Conflict Resolution36:309-341.
3.
Brodie, Bernard , ed. 1946. The absolute weapon. New York: Harcourt Brace.
4.
Diehl, Paul F.1983. Arms races and escalation: A closer look. Journal of Peace Research20:205-212.
5.
Diehl, Paul F.1985. Arms races to war: Testing some empirical linkages. Sociological Quarterly26:331-349.
6.
Diehl, Paul F.1992. What are they fighting for? The importance of issues in international conflict research. Journal of Peace Research29:333-344.
7.
Diehl, Paul F. , and Mark J. C. Crescenzi. 1998. Reconfiguring the arms race-war debate. Journal of Peace Research35 (1), forthcoming.
8.
Fearon, James D.1994. Signaling versus the balance of power and interests: An empirical test of a crisis bargaining model. Journal of Conflict Resolution38:236-269.
9.
George, Alexander , and Richard Smoke. 1974. Deterrence in American foreign policy. New York: Columbia University Press.
10.
George, Jim . 1994. Discourses of global politics: A critical (re)introduction to international relations (Critical Perspectives on World Politics series, edited by R.B.J. Walker). Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
11.
Gochman, Charles S. , and Russell J. Leng. 1983. Realpolitik and the road to war: An analysis of attributes and behavior. International Studies Quarterly27:97-120.
12.
Gochman, Charles S. , and Zeev Maoz. 1984. Militarized interstate disputes, 1816-1976: Procedures, patterns, and insights. Journal of Conflict Resolution28:585-616.
13.
Goertz, Gary , and Paul Diehl. 1993. Enduring rivalries: Theoretical constructs and empirical patterns. International Studies Quarterly37:147-171.
14.
Goertz, Gary , and Paul Diehl. 1995. The “volcano model” and other patterns in the evolution of enduring rivalries. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Chicago, February.
15.
Hensel, Paul R. , and Sara McLaughlin. 1996. Power transitions and dispute escalation in evolving interstate rivalries. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, August.
16.
Holsti, Kalevi J. 1991. Peace and war: Armed conflicts and international order 1648-1989. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Horn, Michael Dean. 1987. Arms races and the international system. Ph.D. diss., University of Rochester.
18.
Huntington, Samuel P.1958. Arms races: Prerequisites and results. Public Policy8:41-86.
19.
Huth, Paul , and Bruce Russett. 1984. What makes deterrence work? Cases from 1900 to 1980. Journal of Conflict Resolution36:496-526.
20.
Jervis, Robert . 1976. Perception and misperception in international politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
Khong, Yuen Foong . 1992. Analogies at war: Korea, Munich, Dien Bien Phu, and the Vietnam decision of 1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
22.
Kremenyuk, Victor A. 1994. The cold war as cooperation. In From rivalry to cooperation: Russian and American perspectives on the post-cold war era, edited by Manus I. Midlarsky, John A. Vasquez, and Peter V. Gladkov, 3-25. New York: HarperCollins.
23.
Kugler, Jacek . 1984. Terror without deterrence: Reassessing the role of nuclear weapons. Journal of Conflict Resolution28:470-506.
24.
Lebow, Richard Ned . 1985. Conclusions. In Psychology and deterrence, edited by Robert Jervis, Richard Ned Lebow, and Janice Gross Stein. 203-232. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
25.
Mansbach, Richard W. , and John A. Vasquez. 1981. In search of theory: A new paradigm for global politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
26.
Midlarsky, Manus I. 1994. Polarity, the learning of cooperation, and the stability of international systems. In From rivalry to cooperation: Russian and American perspectives on the post-cold war era, edited by Manus I. Midlarsky, John A. Vasquez, and Peter V. Gladkov, 26-39. New York: HarperCollins.
27.
Mueller, John . 1993. The essential irrelevance of nuclear weapons. In The cold war and after: Prospects for peace, edited by Sean M. Lynn-Jones and Steven E. Miller, rev. ed., 45-69. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
Organski, A.F.K. 1958. World politics. New York: Knopf.
29.
Organski, A.F.K. , and Jacek Kugler. 1980. The war ledger. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
Ostrom, Charles W. Jr.1977. Evaluating alternative foreign policy decision-making models. Journal of Conflict Resolution21:235-266.
31.
Ostrom, Charles W. Jr.1978. A reactive linkage model of the U.S. defense expenditure policymaking process. American Political Science Review72:941-957.
32.
Richardson, Lewis F. 1960. Arms and insecurity. Pacific Grove, CA: Boxwood.
33.
Russett, Bruce M. 1983. The prisoners of insecurity. San Francisco: Freeman.
34.
Sample, Susan G. 1996. Arms races and the escalation of disputes to war. Ph.D. diss., Vanderbilt University.
35.
Sample, Susan G.1997a. Arms races and dispute escalation: Resolving the debate. Journal of Peace Research34:7-22.
36.
Sample, Susan G. 1997b. Military buildups as a Correlate of War. Paper prepared for the Norman Thomas Lecture Series (Conference on the Scientific Study of War), Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, March.
37.
Sample, Susan G.1998. Furthering the investigation into the effects of arms buildups. Journal of Peace Research35 (1), forthcoming.
38.
Singer, J. David . 1991. Peace in the global system: Displacement, interregnum, or transformation? In The long postwar peace: Contending explanations and projections, edited by Charles W. Kegley Jr., 56-84. New York: HarperCollins.
39.
Small, Melvin , and J. David Singer. 1982. Resort to arms: International and civil wars, 1816-1980. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
40.
Vasquez, John A. 1993. The war puzzle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
41.
Vasquez, John A.1995. Why do neighbors fight? Proximity, interaction, or territoriality?Journal of Peace Research32:277-293.
42.
Vasquez, John A. , and Marie T. Henehan. 1992. Editors' commentary on “arms races and escalation: A closer look” by Paul Diehl. In The scientific study of peace and war: A text reader, edited by John A. Vasquez and Marie T. Henehan, 103-108. New York: Lexington Books.
43.
Wallace, Michael . 1979. Arms races and escalation: Some new evidence. Journal of Conflict Resolution23:3-16.
44.
Wallace, Michael . 1980. Some persisting findings: A reply to Professor Weede. Journal of Conflict Resolution24:289-292.
45.
Wallace, Michael . 1982. Armaments and escalation: Two competing hypotheses. International Studies Quarterly26:37-56.
46.
Wallace, Michael . 1983. Arms races and escalation: A reply to Altfeld. International Studies Quarterly27:233-235.
47.
Wallace, Michael . 1990. Racing redux: The arms race-escalation debate revisited. In Prisoners of war? Nation-states in the modern era, edited by Charles S. Gochman and Alan Ned Sabrosky, 115-122. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
48.
Ward, Michael D.1984. Differential paths to parity: A study of the contemporary arms race. American Political Science Review78:297-317.
49.
Wayman, Frank Whelon . 1996. Power shifts and the onset of war. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of The War Ledger, edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 145-162. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
50.
Weede, Erich . 1980. Arms races and escalation: Some persisting doubts. Journal of Conflict Resolution24:285-287.
51.
Werner, Suzanne , and Jacek Kugler. 1996. Power transitions and military buildups: Resolving the relationship between arms buildups and war. In Parity and war: Evaluations and extensions of The War Ledger, edited by Jacek Kugler and Douglas Lemke, 187-210. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
