Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Is war a rational, well-calculated pursuit of states, or is war more often caused by miscalculation and misperception? Assumptions about the extent of rationality underlie policy debates on subjects ranging from deterrence to missile defense. The rationality assumption also divides theorists and theories on the causes of war into two camps. For example, many realists and expected utility theorists fall into the rationalist camp, while political psychologists and students of bureaucratic politics fall into the miscalculation and misperception camp. Despite this schism, few studies empirically test the overall extent of rationality in decisions for war. Using our “Is War Rational?” database, we find that prior to 1900, war initiators won over seventy percent of the time. Since 1945, only about one-third of initiators win. Assuming that states initiate wars planning to win, the utility of war has declined dramatically, and miscalculation and misperception have come to dominate decisions for war.