Book Review: Military and Scientific Affairs: War
| Published date | 01 March 1965 |
| Date | 01 March 1965 |
| Author | Kenneth Waltz |
| DOI | 10.1177/002070206502000117 |
| Subject Matter | Book Review |
BOOK
RE:vIEWS
121
and
to ethical
"insights?"
No
one
can
deny
that
some
strategic
think-
ing
is
based
on
formal
decision
theory.
But
the author
fails to
concede
that
many experts
dealing
with contemporary
strategic
problems
do
utilize
"insights"
and
display more
than
casual acquaintance
with
the
behavioural
sciences.
Others
are
very
capable
of
agonizing
over
important
ethical
questions
relating
to
war
and
peace.
Even
if
certain
tools
of
analysis
are
found
wanting,
are
we
to
stop
speculating
about
the
"unthinkable"
just
because
it
may
involve
arbitrarily
assigning
utilities
to
human
lives?
Isn't
strategic
thinking
a
response
to
a
per-
ception
of
a
threat
which
may
objectively
exist?
Surely
it is
over-
stating
the
case
to claim
that
nuclear
war
could
not
occur
if
the
strategists
on
both
sides did
not
put
forward
convincing
arguments
for
possessing
more
nuclear
weapons
and increasing
the
will
to
use
them.
Professor
Rapoport
may
overstate
his
case
and
knock
down
straw
men
with
too
much
vigour.
But
this
is
the first
"scientific"
attack
on
a
group
of
men
and
a
mode of
thought
that
probably has
been
sur-
rounded
with
an
aura
of
unwarranted
objectivity.
He
presents
a
per-
suasive
case
which
will
likely
launch
a
needed
and
important
debate.
Those
who will
be
taking
sides
must read
this
volume.
University
of
British
Columbia
K. J.
HoLsTi
WAR.
Studies
from
Psychology,
Sociology,
Anthropology.
Edited
by
Leon
Bramson
and
George
W.
Goethals.
1964.
(New
York:
Basic
Books.
Toronto:
General
Publishing.
407pp.
$8.65)
The
essays
and
excerpts
that
make
up
this
volume
have
been
superbly
selected.
Anyone
who
reads
the
book
from
cover
to
cover
will
gain
an
accurate
impression
of
the
range
of
quality
and
the
degrees
of
political
relevance
achieved by
psychologists,
sociologists,
and an-
thropologists
who
have
ventured
to
say something
of
the
causes of
war
and
the
prospects
for
peace.
William
James's
notion,
that
if
war
is to
be
eliminated
substitute
sources
of
excitement
will
have to
be
found,
is
seen
to
be
surprisingly
common.
The
conviction
that
while
all
of
the
interesting
things
may
happen
to
adults
all
of
the
important
ones
happen
to
children,
is
reflected
on
many
a
page:
here
in
the
form
that
war
could
be
eliminated
if
children were
properly reared.
Those
who
subscribe
to
the frustration-aggression
hypothesis
are
well
represented.
Those
who
dissent
from
it
find
a
brilliant
spokesman
in
Bronislaw
Malinowski.
Having made
their
selections
in
such
a
way as
to
reflect
a
variety
of
views,
the
editors
are
content
to
relate
each essay
to
the
literature
of
the
field,
while seldom
intruding
an
editorial
opinion. When
they
do
offer
their
judgements, they
are
sometimes
surprising.
Gordon
Allport's
elliptic
assertion
that
"what
people
expect
determines
their
behavior"
(p.
177)
and
his
attempt
to
apply
the
maxim
to
the
outbreak
of
wars
is
described
as
"a
brilliant
contribution
in
its
own
right."
(p.
150)
It
seems
instead
to
be
routinely
irrelevant.
If "it is
'54-40
or
fight,'"
then
war
is
according
to
Allport,
"indeed
inevitable."
(p.
185)
That
the
To continue reading
Request your trial