Suchergebnisse

Introduction -- Major powers and global contenders -- Deterrence and conflict -- Balance of power and power shifts : global interests at stake -- Credibility and geopolitics : regional interests at stake -- Resolve and domestic costs : internal interests at stake -- Predicting major power conflicts : high stakes or costly signals? -- Theoretical and policy implications

For deterrence to work, a potential attacker needs to perceive the deterrer's threats as capable and credible for retaliation. The issue of relative capabilities has been extensively analyzed, yet the core problem concerns credible intentions. The strategic literature is largely influenced by commitment theory prescribing various "manipulation of risk" strategies intended to enhance threat credibility. A few analysts, however, challenge this view and recognize the importance of "intrinsic interests" in the issues at stake (i.e., inherent credibility), which can limit the effectiveness of costly signals. These two alternative views are quantitatively tested in the cases of major-powers deterrence from 1895 to 1985. A new measure of the observable category of inherent credibility is also introduced, consisting of the regional interests of major powers in the area of dispute. The results indicate strong and significant effects of regional interests on both the onset and outcomes of extended-immediate deterrence, thus suggesting relevant theoretical and policy implications.

Three critical issues involved in quantitative analysis of deterrence are addressed: the criteria for identifying deterrence cases, the problem of selection bias, and understanding the nature of deterrence outcomes. The criteria for establishing the presence of immediate deterrent threats are refined to allow for a more robust selection of cases, and deterrence outcomes are revised to include compromise as a midpoint between success and failure. A new data set of extended-immediate deterrence for the 1895-1985 period is presented and compared to previous data sets. Hypotheses about the effects of relative power and alliances on deterrence outcomes are developed to rectify the problem of selection bias due to unobservable prior beliefs. Alliances are shown to be a more reliable predictor of behavior than previously assumed. The results support theoretical expectations about the consequences of selection bias that more powerful states are less likely to acquiesce. The inclusion of compromise proves significant because only this outcome is strongly associated with the balance of power.

Includes bibliographical references (p. 259-279) and index. ; Introduction -- Major powers and global contenders -- Deterrence and conflict -- Balance of power and power shifts : global interests at stake -- Credibility and geopolitics : regional interests at stake -- Resolve and domestic costs : internal interests at stake -- Predicting major power conflicts : high stakes or costly signals? -- Theoretical and policy implications. ; Mode of access: Internet.