Search

A formal model reveals how the information environment affects international races to implement a powerful, dangerous new military technology, which may cause a "disaster" affecting all states. States implementing the technology face a tradeoff between the safety of the technology and performance in the race. States face unknown, private, and public information about capabilities. More decisive races, in which small performance leads produce larger probabilities of victory, are usually more dangerous. In addition, revealing information about rivals' capabilities has two opposing effects on risk: states discover either that they are far apart in capability and compete less or that they are close in capability and drastically reduce safety to win. Therefore, the public information scenario is less risky than the private information scenario except under high decisiveness. Finally, regardless of information, the larger the eventual loser's impact on safety relative to the eventual winner's, the more dangerous is the race. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The book under review is a collective monograph by the Russian International Affairs Council ‘International relations: Facets of the present and the future’, published in 2023. The reviewer emphasizes the high relevance of this work since all leading states (including Russia) are facing a need for a deeper rethinking of current trends in the development of international relations and establishment of new strategic priorities. The book under review differs from numerous recent Russian and foreign publications on the matter by a truly broad thematic scope and comprehensive approach. The monograph touches upon both the ‘classical’ factors of international relations (military power, energy, trade) and a number of new ones, which have acquired particular importance as the international system entered a period of profound transformation. These new factors include artificial intelligence, education, digital security, the climate crisis, ‘soft power’, etc. The reviewer concludes that this monograph can serve as a beacon in the raging ocean of modern world politics and as such may be of interest to both international experts and diplomats, as well as to a broad reading audience.

In an article published by the author in Insight Turkey, the impact of economic power on international security was discussed with a detailed explanation of the connection between economic and military power. However, there was inadequate discussion of the links between military power and international security. This article aims to explain the impact of military power on international security and how a state can achieve its security objectives by employing military power. In addition to conceptual and theoretical ideas, the analysis contains a discussion of actual examples of the use of military power, especially by Türkiye in recent years, in achieving its international security objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Defense Sciences / Savunma Bilmleri Dergisi is the property of Turkish Military Academy Defense Sciences Institute and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The states (countries) are playing game of power and interest in the international system (IS) to survive and develop. In this game, the states compete to take the best position in the ranking of power. This allows to pursue their national interests more effectively. States with the greatest power (top states) decide on the polar structure and geostrategic nature of IS at every level (global, regional, local). Investigating the structure (static research) and nature (dynamic research) of global balance of power (GBP) after the Cold War three types of power: economic power, military power and geopolitical power were taken into consideration. The results of theoretical and empirical research are relevant to the decision-making process of the political system of states directly or indirectly involved in the international security. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article uses an original data set, the Wartime Civil-military Relations Data Set, to test arguments about the causes of victory and defeat in war. Our analysis provides strong initial support for the notion that civil-military relations powerfully shape state prospects for victory and defeat. Specifically, states whose militaries have a significant internal role or whose regimes engage in coup-proofing appear to have a substantially lower probability of winning interstate wars, even when we account for the role of other important variables, including regime type and material capabilities. Crucially, our measures of civil-military relations include coup incidence but also move beyond it to detect more subtle indicators of civil-military relations. The resulting analysis should give us confidence in acknowledging the importance of nonmaterial variables in explaining war outcomes, while also paving the way for further research that can utilize and extend the data set. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How do we understand combat effectiveness – soldiers’ performance in battle? Despite the broad consensus that understanding combat effectiveness is important both for scholars and policymakers, there is widespread disagreement about what combat effectiveness is. More specifically, studies of effectiveness tend to focus on either the skill of soldiers in battle, or their will to fight. Yet both skill and will are essential components of an effective fighting force. This article argues that understanding combat effectiveness requires understanding both of these key components of effectiveness. In other words, combat effectiveness requires both the skill and will to engage the enemy in an organized manner. It then demonstrates the usefulness of this conceptualization by applying it to the cases of British, Indian, and Australian forces fighting the Japanese during the Second World War. Only when scholars are talking about the same concept will our understanding of the conditions under which militaries are effective in battle progress. By comparing different units fighting the same opponent under the same material conditions, I demonstrate that units vary both in their combat skill and their will to fight, and that understanding their effectiveness in battle requires analyzing both of these key factors. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Why do only some powerful states choose to develop power projection capabilities? To answer this question, we test the proposition that states choose to develop power projection capabilities when they face a competitive geopolitical environment. This proposition is derived from our theory, which is used to construct a new measure of the level of geopolitical competition that every state in the system faces. This measure incorporates each state’s relative geographic position to every other state in the international system, the relative amount of economic power of those other states, and the degree to which their interests are compatible. We then apply this unique country-year measure to test the proposition that competitive environments are associated with the development of power projection capabilities, as measured by the tonnage of naval ships maintained by each country in each year. We demonstrate that our measure helps explain the degree to which states choose to invest in power projection capabilities. This provides an explanation for why the world has been economically multipolar, but military unipolar, for the past quarter century, and why this might change in the future, as rising powers with incompatible interests are increasing their investment in power projection capabilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What explains the use of military conscription? Using a new data set of more than 100 countries over a period of 200 years, we examine the determinants of a state’s decision to implement a military draft. We argue that the decision to use conscription is largely dependent on historical factors. Specifically, we contend that former British colonies are less likely to use conscription as a means of military recruitment because of an anticonscription precedent set during the English Civil War. We find that former British colonies are far less likely to opt for conscription, even after controlling for counter arguments relating to a state’s colonial legacy. We also examine a number of existing explanations for the use of conscripts, using the data to arbitrate previous debates. We find that democracies are less likely to implement the draft, while states involved in an interstate war or interstate rivalry are more likely to do so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The importance of the oceans to humankind has been studied throughout the centuries, including in the fields of co-operation and conflict. This think piece synthesises discussions in international politics of some of the characteristics of oceans, especially discussions in the strategic-military domain, It contests those who consider oceans as a “barrier", and alternatively defends that oceans are a critical enabler that allows the generation of wealth, projection of military forces, and the influence of the international politics in war or peace. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Critical security advocates commonly portray strategic studies as crippled by its narrow focus on Cold War-era military issues, as state-centric and as Western-centric. I argue that this conception of the scope of strategy is flawed and I offer a comprehensive rebuttal by working out the logic of the theories advanced by Carl von Clausewitz and Thomas Schelling. The proponents of critical security overlook the striking expansion of strategy during the Cold War, its longstanding inclusion of competing political actors not just states, as well as its capacity to put Western and non-Western actors in a common analytic frame. By breaking out of the conceptual jails in which strategy has been incarcerated, I seek to reconnect International Relations to strategic thought from which it has become increasingly estranged. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

We study the factors that influence citizen support for defense spending in fourteen democracies over the period 2004–2013. We pose two research questions. First, what factors influence citizen support for war and military force? We refer to this as the acceptability of war. Second, in addition to the acceptability of war, what other factors affect support for defense spending? Our principal finding is that citizen acceptance of war and support for defense spending are most influenced by basic beliefs and values. Gender also has a strong negative influence on attitudes toward war and thus indirectly lowers support for defense spending among women. Attitudes toward war and defense spending are also sometimes influenced by short-term threats and by alliance considerations, but the effects are not as substantively meaningful. We conclude with a summary of the results and a discussion of the implications for theory and policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, we explore how presidential risk orientations affect force employment decisions through an analysis of the use of unmanned weaponry during the Bush and Obama administrations. We hypothesize that the conception of risk plays an integral part in this choice of weaponry. In order to examine our hypothesis, we utilize the verbs-in-context system of operational code analysis to quantify the risk propensities of President Bush and President Obama during the Afghanistan War from 2001 to 2013. At the aggregate level, we find that the two presidents exhibit unique interpretations of risk with respect to manned versus unmanned weaponry. We further disaggregate our data to examine whether these preferences are fixed or fluctuate with situational changes. We find that President Bush’s risk calculations are influenced by a number of situational variables, highlighting the importance of changing decision contexts in explaining risk behaviors. President Obama’s risk calculations, on the other hand, remain constant over time lending credence to the importance of overall risk propensity in determining risk-taking behaviors. Our findings indicate that risk is an important variable in explaining the means of force employed during conflict, and that the source of this behavior can vary by leader. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As captured by neorealist theory, military power became increasingly relative through into the twentieth century, leading to a concentration of power within and between states—and enabling the buildup of huge colonial empires hardly a century ago. Yet since 1945, due to the overproportional effectivity gained by weaker and in particular nonstate actors it has become less relative, leading to a dispersion of power—resulting in an often violent decolonization, the problems US and North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces have faced in Iraq and Afghanistan in dealing with comparatively small insurgencies and a growing number of failing states. Military power has a selective function: the more relative it is, the more it restricts patterns of conflict as well as the number and nature of actors relevant to international and domestic security. Today, it is because military power is becoming less relative that security policy has to adapt to increasingly asymmetric challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Aussen- und Sicherheitspolitik is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this paper the security of Turkey with respect to Syria, Iraq and Iran is examined. A theoretical model is presented for analyzing the security of Turkey. This model emphasizes the power and in particular the military power for interpreting and predicting the security of a state. Consistent with the theoretical framework that the security model provides, developments in the military power, population and economic power of Turkey in relation to Syria, Iraq, and Iran are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The importance of the oceans to humankind has been studied throughout the centuries, including in the fields of co-operation and conflict. This think piece synthesises discussions in international politics of some of the characteristics of oceans, especially discussions in the strategic-military domain, It contests those who consider oceans as a “barrier”, and alternatively defends that oceans are a critical enabler that allows the generation of wealth, projection of military forces, and the influence of the international politics in war or peace.