Arms Races and Escalation: A Closer Look
| Author | Paul F. Diehl |
| Published date | 01 September 1983 |
| DOI | 10.1177/002234338302000301 |
| Date | 01 September 1983 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Arms
Races
and
Escalation:
A
Closer
Look*
PAUL
F.
DIEHL
Correlates
of
War
Project,
University
of
Michigan
The
relationship
between
arms
races
and
war
is
a
critical
consideration
in
both
peace
research
and
strategic
planning.
This
study
reconsiders
the
work
of
Michael
Wallace
which
has
postulated
that
arms
races
significantly
increase
the
probability
of
a
serious
dispute
escalating
to
war.
A
critique
of
Wallace’s
coding
procedures
and
arms
race
index
precedes
an
attempt
to
replicate
his
findings.
In
the
replication,
serious
disputes,
taken
from
the
Correlates
of
War
Project,
among
major
powers
during
the
years
1816-1970
serve
as
the
population
to
be
tested.
Adjustments
in coding
and
index
construction
from
the
Wallace
work
are
made.
It
was
discovered
that
only
25%
of
those
disputes
preceded
by
a
mutual
military
buildup
escalated
to
war,
while
almost
77%
of
the
wars
in
this
population
were
preceded
by
periods
lacking
armaments
competition.
Controls
for
inter-century
differences
and
unilateral
military
buildups
failed
to
alter
this
apparent
lack
of
a
relationship
between
arms
races
and
dispute
escalation.
Differences
with
Wallace’s
study
are
analyzed
and
the
implications
for
peace
research
discussed.
Conventional
wisdom
has
always
presupposed
a
link
between
rapid
military
buildups
and
war.
The
old
dictum
’if
you
want
peace,
prepare
for
war’
offers
one
perspective
on
the
inter-relationship
of
military
spending
and
the
outbreak
of
conflict.
The
spiral
model
is
indicative
of
a
more
dangerous
connection
between
increasing
weapons
and
war.
Whether
the
effect
is
deterrence
or
provocation,
a
nation’s
decision
to
significantly
increase
its
military
capability
could
be
an
important
factor
in
the
understanding
of
interstate
war.
Despite
the
central
nature
of
military
spending
in
national
security
decision-making,
empirical
researchers
have
generally
ignored
its
possible
effect
on
the
initiation
of
war.
This
void
in
the
academic
literature
noted
by
Singer
(1979)
in
1969
remains
large
today.
Nevertheless,
some
recent
efforts
have
ex-
tended
the
pioneering
ideas
of
Richardson
(1960),
studying
the
impact
of
arms
races
and
military
spending
decisions
on
the
outbreak
of
war.
The
most
interesting
work
in
this
area
has
been
that
of
Michael
Wallace.
He
used
early
Correlates
of
War
(COW)
Project
compilations
on
major
power
military
ex-
penditures
and
serious
disputes
to
investigate
nation
behavior
in
conflict
generated
sit-
uations.
In
a
widely
quoted
article,
Wallace
(1979)
concluded
that
the
presence
or
absence
of
an
arms
race
between
two
rivals
correctly
predicted
war/no
war
outcomes
in
over
90%
of
the
serious
disputes
studied.
Those
results
are
summarized
in
Table
I.
A
later
study
by
the
same
author
(Wallace
1982),
using
the
same
data
base,
served
to
reinforce
this
strong
association
between
arms
races
and
war.
The
general
paucity
of
alter-
native
investigations
makes
Wallace’s
studies
the
most
definitive
to
date.
If
Wallace’s
findings
are
correct,
the
im-
plications
for
policymaking
on
arms
limitation
are
clear.
The
START
negotiations
must
proceed
with
all
deliberate
speed,
lest
a
clash
between
the
superpowers
should
escalate
to
all-out
war.
However,
certain
methodological
problems
cast
doubt
on
the
validity
of
Wal-
lace’s
conclusions.
It
is
the
purpose
of
this
paper
to
detail
these
difficulties
and
retest
*
An
earlier
version
of
this
paper
was
presented
at
the
Annual
Meeting
of
the
International
Studies
Association-South,
Atlanta,
4-6
November
1982.
The
author
would
like
to
thank
Michael
Champion,
Miroslav
Nincic,
Peter
Wallensteen,
J.
David
Singer,
Bradley
Martin
and
Bruce
Russett
for
their
comments
and
suggestions.
In
addition,
gratitude
is
expressed
to
Mary
Macknick
and
Louis
Erste
for
technical
assistance
in
this
project.
To continue reading
Request your trial