Suchergebnisse

Abstract
States are increasingly incorporating militarized cyber technologies, or cyber weapons, into their defense arsenals, but there is vigorous debate about their coercive utility. Existing scholarship often adjudicates the debate by parsing technical differences between cyber and conventional weapons. This technical approach overlooks a critical consideration: bureaucrats who inform state assessments may hold unique perspectives on coercion due to their organizational affiliation. We make an empirical intervention by fielding a survey experiment on bureaucrats inside US Cyber Command, offering a rare glimpse into elite perceptions. We find little evidence that technical differences between weapons yield systematically different assessments. Bureaucrats perceive that conventional and cyber weapons have statistically indistinguishable coercive utility and battlefield effects. Replicating the study on a public sample, we find that bureaucrats are more optimistic about coercion across all domains and their optimism stems from organizational culture, rather than parochial interests or technical expertise. The findings show how who is responsible for assessing a technology's coercive value can shape estimates even more than which technology is being assessed. Unique perspectives clustered within influential bureaucracies may shape state assessments and policies in ways that diverge from the expectations of analyses that emphasize technical characteristics of military capabilities.

Do military and civilian attitudes on the use of force differ and, if so, why? Past scholarship is divided not only on whether decision-makers with military experience are more hawkish but also in whether differences stem from organizational selection or socialization. We contribute to these debates through a unique opportunity to survey incoming military officers at the US Military Academy before and after basic training and pair the results with simultaneous surveys of a nationally representative sample. We find that future military elites are more hawkish than civilians, the gap is evident upon arrival, and initial socializing experiences cannot explain the gap. Numerous tests addressing potential socialization effects over a longer period reveal that experience may attenuate hawkishness but that it is insufficient to offset initial differences. The results indicate that preexisting attitudes shape the groups into which elites select as much as experiences in those groups shape attitudes.

States are increasingly incorporating militarized cyber technologies, or cyber weapons, into their defense arsenals, but there is vigorous debate about their coercive utility. Existing scholarship often adjudicates the debate by parsing technical differences between cyber and conventional weapons. This technical approach overlooks a critical consideration: bureaucrats who inform state assessments may hold unique perspectives on coercion due to their organizational affiliation. We make an empirical intervention by fielding a survey experiment on bureaucrats inside US Cyber Command, offering a rare glimpse into elite perceptions. We find little evidence that technical differences between weapons yield systematically different assessments. Bureaucrats perceive that conventional and cyber weapons have statistically indistinguishable coercive utility and battlefield effects. Replicating the study on a public sample, we find that bureaucrats are more optimistic about coercion across all domains and their optimism stems from organizational culture, rather than parochial interests or technical expertise. The findings show how who is responsible for assessing a technology's coercive value can shape estimates even more than which technology is being assessed. Unique perspectives clustered within influential bureaucracies may shape state assessments and policies in ways that diverge from the expectations of analyses that emphasize technical characteristics of military capabilities.

What are the consequences of women dying in combat? We study how women fighting on the frontlines of the military affects public attitudes toward (1) military conflict and (2) women's equality. We demonstrate through a series of survey experiments that women dying in combat does not reduce public support for war. However, women's combat deaths do shape perceptions of women's equality. Women dying in combat increases support for gender equality, particularly in the public sphere of work and politics, but only among women respondents. The findings indicate that women's combat deaths do not undermine leaders' ability to garner support for war, but combat service—and indeed, combat sacrifice—alone is insufficient to yield women's "first-class citizenship" among the general US public. The results highlight how major policy changes challenging traditional conceptions of gender and war can generate positive attitudinal shifts concentrated among members of the underrepresented community.

AbstractDo advisers affect foreign policy and, if so, how? Recent scholarship on elite decision making prioritizes leaders and the institutions that surround them, rather than the dispositions of advisers themselves. We argue that despite the hierarchical nature of foreign policy decision making, advisers' predispositions regarding the use of force shape state behavior through the counsel advisers provide in deliberations. To test our argument, we introduce an original data set of 2,685 foreign policy deliberations between US presidents and their advisers from 1947 to 1988. Applying a novel machine learning approach to estimate the hawkishness of 1,134 Cold War–era foreign policy decision makers, we show that adviser-level hawkishness affects both the counsel that advisers provide in deliberations and the decisions leaders make: conflictual policy choices grow more likely as hawks increasingly dominate the debate, even when accounting for leader dispositions. The theory and findings enrich our understanding of international conflict by demonstrating how advisers' dispositions, which aggregate through the counsel advisers provide, systematically shape foreign policy behavior.