The Impact of Conventional Force Reductions on Strategic Deterrence: A Game-Theoretic Analysis

Many game-theoretic analyses of deterrence confirm the commonsense view that what determines whether a defender can effectively deter a challenger from an unwanted action is (1) the challenger’s perception of the level of punishment that the defender will be able to impose on the challenger should it take the action, and (2) the challenger’s level of belief about the likelihood of the defender actually carrying out this punishment. Reduction of the defender’s forces may affect both the defender’s ability to retaliate and its perceived willingness to do so. Game-theoretic methods are used to assess how the limits on both of these parameters are related, subject to the condition that deterrence remains effective. The results indicate that the defending side can often make do with smaller forces, provided its (apparent) resolve is high. But force structure is important—the models suggest that implementation of an “all-or-nothing” deployment (as called for by a doctrine of massive retaliation, for example) may reduce not only costs, but also deterrence effectiveness

DETERRENCE THEORY

This article argues that classical (or rational) deterrence theory is logically inconsistent, empirically inaccurate and prescriptively deficient. In its stead it offers an alternative theoretical framework – perfect deterrence theory – that makes consistent use of the rationality postulate and is in accord with the empirical literature of deterrence. Perfect deterrence theory’s axiomatic base, its empirical expectations and its most significant policy prescriptions are highlighted and contrasted with those of classical deterrence theory. The theory’s implications for current policy debates about a national missile defense system, arms control, US policy toward China and Russia, and inter-state negotiations in general, are discussed. KEY WORDS. arms control. deterrence and rationality. US foreign policy Classical deterrence theory, or what Glaser (1989) calls the ‘punitive retaliation school’, constitutes the conventional wisdom in international relations scholarship. An intellectual descendant of balance of power theory, classica

EXPLAINING THE 1914 WAR IN EUROPE AN ANALYTIC NARRATIVE

ABSTRACT This essay constructs a theoretically rigorous explanation of the 1914 European war that involved Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, and France. It also serves to confirm Trachtenberg's contention that 'one does not have to take a particularly dark view of German intentions' to explain the onset of war in 1914 and 'question the ''inadvertent war'' theory'. A number of related questions about the Great War are also addressed within the context of a generic game-theoretic escalation model with incomplete information. The analysis suggests that general war broke out in Europe in 1914 because both AustriaHungary and Germany believed that, when push came to shove, Russia would stand aside if Austria moved aggressively against Serbia. There is a sense in which the war can be said to be unintended but there is no sense in which it should be understood as accidental

Reconciling Rationality with Deterrence: A Re-examination of the Logical Foundations of Deterrence Theory

This article argues that classical (or rational) deterrence theory is logically inconsistent, empirically inaccurate and prescriptively deficient. In its stead it offers an alternative theoretical framework – perfect deterrence theory – that makes consistent use of the rationality postulate and is in accord with the empirical literature of deterrence. Perfect deterrence theory’s axiomatic base, its empirical expectations and its most significant policy prescriptions are highlighted and contrasted with those of classical deterrence theory. The theory’s implications for current policy debates about a national missile defense system, arms control, US policy toward China and Russia, and inter-state negotiations in general, are discussed

Explaining Limited Conflicts’,

This report uses a generic two-stage escalation model to ask whether and whe

The Impact of Conventional Force Reductions on Strategic Deterrence: A Game-Theoretic Analysis

Many game-theoretic analyses of deterrence confirm the commonsense view that what determines whether a defender can effectively deter a challenger from an unwanted action is (1) the challenger’s perception of the level of punishment that the defender will be able to impose on the challenger should it take the action, and (2) the challenger’s level of belief about the likelihood of the defender actually carrying out this punishment. Reduction of the defender’s forces may affect both the defender’s ability to retaliate and its perceived willingness to do so. Game-theoretic methods are used to assess how the limits on both of these parameters are related, subject to the condition that deterrence remains effective. The results indicate that the defending side can often make do with smaller forces, provided its (apparent) resolve is high. But force structure is important—the models suggest that implementation of an "all-or-nothing" deployment (as called for by a doctrine of massive retaliation, for example) may reduce not only costs, but also deterrence effectiveness.