Citation

Is War Rational? The Extent of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War

Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Get this Document | Similar Titles




STOP!

You can now view the document associated with this citation by clicking on the "View Document as HTML" link below.

View Document as HTML:
Click here to view the document

Abstract:

ISA 2006 ProposalIs War Rational? The Extent of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of WarA central but often implicit debate in the causes of war literature centers on the question: is war mostly the rational and Clausewitzian pursuit of states and groups, or is it primarily the result of miscalculation and misperception? Explanations for war relying on offensive realism, expected utility theories, elite manipulation, or pre-emption all tend to be rational. On the other hand, hypernationalism, optimistic miscalculation, and the ?Cult of the Offensive? are miscalculation and misperception explanations. Most theories about the causes of war, and most arguments about particular wars, can be parsed into either the rational camp or the miscalculation and misperception camp. Little work clashes the two sets of arguments, or spans multiple methodologies. I do this in three ways:First, miscalculation and misperception has to be defined so that they can be distinguished from a rational Clauwitzianism. Likewise, observable implications have to distinguish between the two camps. Those making miscalculation arguments must also show that the natural equilibrium of the states in question is peace. While there are many miscalculation and misperception arguments about war (Blainey, Van Evera), most proponents fail to take these steps.Second, I perform statistical analyses to get a sense of the extent of the miscalculation problem. I ask: how many war initiators lost wars, how many states started wars against more powerful states (and won or lost), how many states initially won their wars, but got balanced against and ended up losing, and so forth. When Bueno de Mesquita wrote War Trap, initiators won 42 of 58 interstate wars, leading him to argue that states generally make rational calculations when going to war.My ISA paper will present the framework of the project and the statistical findings. We find that war initiators only win 33% of the time since 1945, compared to 77% during the 1800s. Assuming that most initiators plan on winning, states miscalculate with increasing frequency. Our analysis also shows when war initiators win, the average length of the war is 308 days. When they lose, duration is 660 days. This supports the arguments of Van Evera and Blainey that states start wars thinking they will be quick and cheap. When states calculate well and win, wars are indeed shorter than when they lose. To identify conditions which imply variations in miscalculation and misperception, I am analyzing such factors as: duration, presence of joiners, and relative fatality, force, and power levels. I will be well into Phase II of this project by Spring 2006, and will have conducted a number of analyses to help explain why the win rate has declined so dramatically.

Most Common Document Word Stems:

war (255), initi (238), win (140), rate (107), outcom (106), ration (101), power (93), joiner (92), miscalcul (89), mid (88), mispercept (84), cow (74), state (73), increas (59), decis (53), 1 (52), time (52), averag (50), n (43), lose (40), caus (40),
Convention
All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting.
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

Association:
Name: International Studies Association
URL:
http://www.isanet.org


Citation:
URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p100085_index.html
Direct Link:
HTML Code:

MLA Citation:

Lindley, Dan. "Is War Rational? The Extent of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA, Mar 22, 2006 <Not Available>. 2009-05-25 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p100085_index.html>

APA Citation:

Lindley, D. , 2006-03-22 "Is War Rational? The Extent of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Studies Association, Town & Country Resort and Convention Center, San Diego, California, USA Online <PDF>. 2009-05-25 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p100085_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: ISA 2006 ProposalIs War Rational? The Extent of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of WarA central but often implicit debate in the causes of war literature centers on the question: is war mostly the rational and Clausewitzian pursuit of states and groups, or is it primarily the result of miscalculation and misperception? Explanations for war relying on offensive realism, expected utility theories, elite manipulation, or pre-emption all tend to be rational. On the other hand, hypernationalism, optimistic miscalculation, and the ?Cult of the Offensive? are miscalculation and misperception explanations. Most theories about the causes of war, and most arguments about particular wars, can be parsed into either the rational camp or the miscalculation and misperception camp. Little work clashes the two sets of arguments, or spans multiple methodologies. I do this in three ways:First, miscalculation and misperception has to be defined so that they can be distinguished from a rational Clauwitzianism. Likewise, observable implications have to distinguish between the two camps. Those making miscalculation arguments must also show that the natural equilibrium of the states in question is peace. While there are many miscalculation and misperception arguments about war (Blainey, Van Evera), most proponents fail to take these steps.Second, I perform statistical analyses to get a sense of the extent of the miscalculation problem. I ask: how many war initiators lost wars, how many states started wars against more powerful states (and won or lost), how many states initially won their wars, but got balanced against and ended up losing, and so forth. When Bueno de Mesquita wrote War Trap, initiators won 42 of 58 interstate wars, leading him to argue that states generally make rational calculations when going to war.My ISA paper will present the framework of the project and the statistical findings. We find that war initiators only win 33% of the time since 1945, compared to 77% during the 1800s. Assuming that most initiators plan on winning, states miscalculate with increasing frequency. Our analysis also shows when war initiators win, the average length of the war is 308 days. When they lose, duration is 660 days. This supports the arguments of Van Evera and Blainey that states start wars thinking they will be quick and cheap. When states calculate well and win, wars are indeed shorter than when they lose. To identify conditions which imply variations in miscalculation and misperception, I am analyzing such factors as: duration, presence of joiners, and relative fatality, force, and power levels. I will be well into Phase II of this project by Spring 2006, and will have conducted a number of analyses to help explain why the win rate has declined so dramatically.

Get this Document:

Find this citation or document at one or all of these locations below. The links below may have the citation or the entire document for free or you may purchase access to the document. Clicking on these links will change the site you're on and empty your shopping cart.

Abstract Only All Academic Inc.
Associated Document Available Political Research Online
Associated Document Available International Studies Association

Document Type: PDF
Page count: 49
Word count: 14495
Text sample:
Dan Lindley and Ryan Schildkraut 1 “Is War Rational? The Extent of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War” Paper prepared for the Panel: Signaling Reputation and War SB21 Saturday 10:30 AM - 12:15 PM David P. Auerswald Chair International Studies Association 2006 San Diego **************** “By every rational standard North Korea should still be deterred. In practice however few wars are the result of rational calculations managed crises and highly intellectual escalation ladders.” (Cordesman 2002) “War seems to
A. ed. What Do We Know About War? (Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield 2000) Walt Stephen M. The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca NY: Cornell University Press 1987) Waltz Kenneth Theory of International Politics (New York NY: Random House 1979) Wang Kevin and James Lee Ray “Beginners and Winners: The Fate of Interstate Wars Involving Great Powers Since 1495 ” International Studies Quarterly Vol. 38 No. 1 (March 1994) Yamamoto Yoshinobu and Stuart A. Bremer “Wider Wars and Restless Nights;


Similar Titles:
Is War Rational? The Extent of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War

Is War Rational? The Extent and Some Sources of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War

Is War Rational? The Extent of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War

Is War Rational? The Extent of Miscalculation and Misperception as Causes of War


 
All Academic, Inc. is your premier source for research and conference management. Visit our website, www.allacademic.com, to see how we can help you today.