Abstract

Earlier studies of the relationship between arms race and the escalation of conflict into war have shown strong correlations. However, it could be argued that the arms race is necessary to prevent one party gaining preponderance, and preponderance would in itself be more dangerous: the para bellum hypothesis. With the use of indices of superiority as well as of differential growth, this hypothesis can be tested, using the Correlates of War data on military expenditure and military confrontations and applying LOGIT analysis. When comparing these results to the ones achieved by an arms race index, it is clear that the latter has a far greater explanatory power.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.