Skip to content

Bi-Weekly Discussion - What Causes Wars?

Photo of Brian B.
Hosted By
Brian B.
Bi-Weekly Discussion - What Causes Wars?

Details

We're currently hosting our discussions at Café Walnut, near the corner of 7th & Walnut in Olde City, just across the street from Washington Square Park. The cafe's entrance is below street level down some stairs, which can be confusing if it's your first time. Our group meets in the large room upstairs.

Since we're using the cafe's space, they ask that each person attending the meetup at least purchase a drink or snack. Please don't bring any food or drinks from outside.

The cafe is fairly easy to get to if you're using public transit. With SEPTA, take the Market-Frankford Line & get off at the 5th Street Station (corner of 5th & Market), and walk 2 blocks south on 5th and then turn right on Walnut Street and walk 2 blocks west. For those who are driving, I'd suggest parking in the Washington Square parking deck at 249 S 6th Street.

----------------------------------------------
WHAT CAUSES WARS... AND WHAT PROLONGS THEM?

INTRODUCTION:

Why do human societies fight wars? This is one of the most basic questions we have to try to answer in order to understand foreign policy, but unfortunately it's very difficult to determine if there's a scholarly consensus on this question. While the College of William & Mary's TRIP program has polled thousands of America's international relations scholars on a variety of issues since 2014, their questions focused mostly on currents events rather than core issues in their field.

However, even if we can't determine what most IR scholars think about war, perusing the scholarly literature can at least give us a basic overview of the major theories. In general, the causes of war can be separated into two categories each of which are the domain of different schools of thought in international relations: (1) "realists" focus on competing economic interests & differences in military power as the primary causes of war, whereas (2) "constructivists" focus more on the cultural & psychological causes of war.

This meetup will review some of the major ideological causes of war as theorized by the constructivist school. However, before we do that, it would help to review the realist theories of war...

BRIEF REVIEW OF REALIST THEORIES OF WAR:

Realist theories of war are based on the "bargaining model of war" which states that war occurs when two conditions converge: (1) two or more nations have a grievance, and (2) there's a failure of bargaining to resolve the grievance peacefully. Provided that adversarial nations can correctly gauge each other's military power and come to similar estimates on the chances of either side winning and the projected costs of a war, it's always theoretically better for both sides to simply bargain for a settlement that's less expensive than a war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bargaining_model_of_war

However, the bargaining failures that lead to war have several well-known causes: (1) "issue indivisibility" which makes some types of compromise impossible, (2) uncertainty & "information assymetry" which leads to diverging estimates about the risks & costs of a war, and (3) "credible commitment problems" due to fear of the other nation cheating on a treaty or launching a preemptive strike.

A modification to the bargaining model involves accounting not merely for absolute gains but relative gains from war - i.e. countries may be primarily concerned with their international standing & relative power vis-à-vis their neighbors rather than any specific material advantages they could hope to gain from victory in a war. Thus, a state that has static or declining power may decide to start a war with a rising power before they are surpassed. (The idea that a clash between an established power and a rising power is probable or inevitable is known as the "Thucydides Trap".)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_T._Allison#Thucydides_Trap

IR scholars posit different conditions which they think yield bargaining conditions & cost-benefit calculations that are less likely to lead to war. Those who believe in "hegemonic stability theory" think one major power acting as the "global policeman" is more stable, while those who believe in the "balance of power theory" think several major powers with about equal power is more stable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_power_(international_relations)

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita's "selectorate theory" helps explain how the cost/benefit calculation for war varies between autocracies & democracies. Autocrats typically only have to satisfy a small & powerful elite (i.e. top generals, heads of crony industries, religious leaders) while leaders in democracies typically have to satisfy the majority of the electorate. In terms of war, it's easier for an autocrat to sacrifice the common good (i.e. lots of casualties among enlisted men) for concentrated benefits delivered to the elite. All else equal, selectorate theory predicts that autocracies will be more likely to engage in "wars of choice" & "wars of aggression" while democracies are more likely to engage only or mostly in "wars of necessity" & "defensive wars".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selectorate_theory

"Democratic peace theory" helps explain why democracies rarely go to war against each other. One reason is the wider selectorate which makes leaders more accountable to the public interest, but another reason is that democracies typically have a more open public sphere with news coverage & public opinion polls which creates less uncertainty about a nation's war resolve. One of the major problems with democratic peace theory is that democracies should theoretically be less likely to go to war with both other democracies & autocracies, but in practice they're only less likely to go to war with other democracies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

Some scholars have suggested that it's not their form of government that makes democracies less likely to go to war with one another but rather their tendency to adopt free market economic policies. "Capitalist peace theory" explain why countries with free trade are less likely to go to war mostly because it's often easier to trade for resources rather than try to seize them through war & occupation. Also, capitalist countries are typically industrialized, and it's easier for an industrialized nation to grow its economy through innovation which allows more value to be extracted from the existing territory & existing populace rather than trying to conquer new territory & new subjects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalist_peace

Realists often focus on "resource wars" and the idea that the drive to conquer areas with natural resources is a major driver of war. A recent shows that civil wars are much more likely to draw outside intervention if they are in oil-rich nations.
https://psmag.com/news/oil-behind-civil-war-intervention

However, other IR scholars have questioned how relevant natural resources are as an underlying cause for wars of aggression, since invading & occupying another country for its oil often proves to be more expensive than the oil is worth, especially when a prolonged insurgency develops.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/19/oil-wars-why-nations-arent-battling-over-petroleum-resources/

It's possible to reconcile these two views by noting that imperial conquest is associated with early-stage industrialism when labor is still cheap and there's a huge demand for raw materials. Once a country transitions into an advanced industrial economy with a skilled service sector, imperial conquest is no longer profitable and it's cheaper & easier to just negotiate a trade deal to buy resources on the global market.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2005/09/09/the-commercial-peace/

The last major realist theory we should consider is "deterrence theory". "Deterrence" explains the way in which a state can prevent attack by developing its military capabilities so it can launch a powerful counterattack to punish aggression. In the pre-nuclear era, this was often achieved through building a large conventional military, but with the advent of nuclear weapons some nations have come to rely on WMDs for deterrence. However, the fear that nuclear weapons create in other nations can lead to proliferation, possibly making nuclear war more likely in the long run. And since the cost of nuclear war is so high that countries are reluctant to use them, this creates the "stability-instability paradox" where nuclear-armed countries are often more willing to engage in minor conflicts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability–instability_paradox

As we'll see in this discussion, constructivist theories of war posit that ideological clashes may play a major role in precipitating or prolonging wars in a way that can't be captured by the cost/benefit calculations in the bargaining model.

-----------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS ON HOW TO PREPARE FOR OUR DISCUSSION:

The videos & articles you see linked below are intended to give you a basic overview of some of the major debates over the ideological causes of war. As usual, I don't expect you to read all the articles & watch all the videos prior to attending. The easiest way to prepare for our discussion is to just watch the numbered videos linked under each section - the videos come to about about 44 minutes total. The articles marked with asterisks are just there to supply additional details.

In terms of the discussion format, my general idea is that we'll address the topics in the order presented here. I figure we'll spend about 30 minutes on each section.

----------------------------------------------
I. COGNITIVE BIASES THAT LEAD TO WAR:

  • IS THERE ANY VALIDITY TO FREUD'S THEORY THAT WAR IS CAUSED BY EXTERNALIZATION OF AN INNATE "DEATH INSTINCT"?

  • CAN PURELY SYMBOLIC INJURIES TO A NATION'S "COLLECTIVE NARCISSISM" PROVOKE A WAR FOR REVENGE?

  • DOES "OPTIMISM BIAS" CREATE BARGAINING FAILURES & LEAD TO WAR? IS IT COUNTERACTED BY "NEGATIVITY BIAS" IN THE WAKE OF DEFEATS (E.G. VIETNAM SYNDROME)?

  • DOES "SINISTER ATTRIBUTION ERROR" & "REACTIVE DEVALUATION" INEVITABLY MAKE IT HARD TO TRUST ADVERSARIES DURING BARGAINING? OR CAN DEMOCRATIC LEADERS MORE TRUST EACH OTHER MORE?

  • DOES "NAIVE REALISM" & THE "ILLUSION OF TRANSPARENCY" INEVITABLY MAKE LEADERS THINK THEIR OFFERS ARE MORE REASONABLE & TRUSTWORTHY THAN THEY APPEAR TO ADVERSARIES? OR DO MOST LEADERS UNDERSTAND "CREDIBLE COMMITMENT"?

  • CAN FEIGNING IRRATIONALITY - E.G. NIXON'S "MADMAN THEORY" - HELP IF CRISIS BARGAINING RESEMBLES A GAME OF "CHICKEN"? WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE ENEMY CALLS YOUR BLUFF OR IS WILLING TO DIE FOR THEIR CAUSE?

  • DOES "ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT" (SUNK COST FALLACY) PROLONG WARS? IS IT COUNTERACTED BY "WAR WEARINESS" IN DEMOCRACIES?

1a) William Spaniel, "War's Bargaining Range: Information Problems and Incentives to Misrepresent" (video - 5:35 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-4gJMvEF5I

1b) NY Times, "Is Trump Deploying the ‘Madman Theory’ With North Korea?" (video - 2:14 min.)
https://youtu.be/dDdLzcBCeus

.
II. MEDIA EFFECTS ON THE PUBLIC OPINION OF WARS:

  • CAN LEADERS GENERATE A "RALLY ROUND THE FLAG" EFFECT BY LAUNCHING A WAR? IF SO, UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS & HOW LONG DOES IT LAST?

  • IS THE "CNN EFFECT" REAL - I.E. CAN HEAVY MEDIA COVERAGE OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES SWAY THE PUBLIC TO SUPPORT A MILITARY INTERVENTION? IF SO, DOES THE GOV'T OFTEN USE FALSE OR EXAGGERATED REPORTS TO MANIPULATE THE PUBLIC?

  • CAN TRUSTED MEDIA PUNDITS CONVINCE THE PUBLIC TO AVOID WARS OR AT LEAST REALIZE WHEN TO STOP? DID WALTER CRONKITE SHIFT PUBLIC OPINION IN FEB. 1968 WHEN HE PREDICTED THE VIETNAM WAR WOULD END IN A STALEMATE?

  • DOES THE MEDIA FOCUS ON MILITARY WEAPONS TECHNOLOGY PRIME THE PUBLIC TO SUPPORT WARS BY OBSCURING THE HUMAN COSTS?

  • CAN THE MEDIA MAKE THE COSTS OF WAR MORE SALIENT TO THE PUBLIC BY SHOWING DEAD BODIES OR SOLDIERS' COFFINS?

2a) William Spaniel, "Diversionary Wars" (video - 6:59 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6957RzqXTY

2b) Vox, “How the media's weapons fetish primes us for war“ (video - 6:06 min.)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cADiZii4X8s

2c) Reason TV w/ W. Joseph Campbell, "Walter Cronkite wasn't the Most Trusted Man in America?" (video - 5:43 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_5mNYxyW3E

.
III. PATRIARCHY, MILITARISM & HONOR CULTURE:

  • ARE MEN MOTIVATED TO JOIN THE MILITARY BY SEX & SOCIAL STATUS?

  • DO ALL-MALE SOCIAL GROUPS PROMOTE RADICALIZATION?

  • ARE COUNTRIES WITH HIGH GENDER INEQUALITY MORE LIKELY TO GO TO WAR? IF SO, IS THIS DUE TO "TOXIC MASCULINITY" OR SOMETHING ELSE LIKE POVERTY & HIGH BIRTH RATES?

  • WOULD RECRUITING MORE WOMEN INTO FOREIGN POLICY POSITIONS DECREASE "MILITARISM"?

  • ARE "HONOR CULTURES" MORE LIKELY TO GO TO WAR, OR MORE LIKELY TO PROLONG WARS TO SAVE FACE?

  • DOES "GUN CULTURE" MAKE MEN MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT FOREIGN WARS?

3a) Mike Martin, "Why War Boils Down To Sex And Social Status" (video - 3:40 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd27etQH2_E

3b) Global Fund for Women, "What is Militarism?" (video - 3:47 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAReSTjmCZE

.
IV. NATIONALISM, RELIGION & THE CLASH OF CIVILIZATIONS:

  • DID THE RISE OF NATIONALISM IN THE 19th & 20th CENTURIES MAKE WARS OF INDEPENDENCE MORE LIKELY? HOW ABOUT FOREIGN WARS?

  • WERE RELIGIOUS DISPUTES MAJOR FACTORS IN WARS HISTORICALLY? IF NOT, HAS THIS CHANGED IN THE LAST CENTURY?

  • ARE SOME RELIGIOUS BELIEFS (E.G. MARTYRDOM) A MAJOR CAUSE OF WARS?

  • DOES ISLAM HAVE "BLOODY BORDERS" - I.E. ARE MUSLIM STATES PRONE TO ATTACK NON-MUSLIM NEIGHBORS? OR IS MOST CONFLICT WITH OTHER MUSLIMS?

  • ARE ETHNICALLY & RELIGIOUSLY DIVERSE STATES MORE LIKELY TO HAVE CIVIL WARS? IF SO, IS "MULTICULTURALISM" A DANGEROUS PIPEDREAM?

  • ARE NEIGHBORING STATES WITH ETHNIC & RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCES MORE LIKELY TO GO TO WAR?

  • ARE "CIVILIZATIONS" A USEFUL UNIT OF ANALYSIS IN POST-COLD GEOPOLITICS, OR IS THE NATION-STATE STILL PREEMINENT?

4a) Scott Atran, "Analysing the limits of rational choice in political and cultural conflict" (video - 5:07 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxDS2g4qSO8

4b) Richard Bulliet, "What is the origin of the clash of civilizations theory and is it still relevant?" (video - 4:18 min.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tvMNRfZISc

.

Events in Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
See more events
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Cafe Walnut
703 Walnut Street · Philadelphia, PA
Photo of Philadelphia Political Agnostics group
Philadelphia Political Agnostics
public group