Offense-Defense Theory

Abstract

Proponents of offense-defense theory (ODT) contend that the offense-defense balance (ODB) forms the "master key" to understanding the question of peace and war. Time-series event count models of war and militarized interstate disputes at the systemic level are used to test the theory's claims that shifts in the ODB have an important effect on the likelihood of international war and militarized disputes and that ODT offers a more powerful explanation for conflict than other explanations in the international relations (IR) literature. Results cast doubt on the empirical validity of the ODT and indicate that other IR theories have important explanatory power.In recent years, international relations (IR) scholars have rekindled a longstanding debate concerning the effects of shifts in the offense-defense balance (ODB) on the incidence of violent conflict in the international system. At the heart of the debate lies the question of whether the relative superiority of offensive military strategies and capabilities, over corresponding defensive measures, has an important effect on the likelihood of international crisis and war. That is, do factors that increase the ease and likelihood of success of offensive operations-such as innovations in military technology-make conflict and war more likely?Proponents of what is now generally known as offense-defense theory (ODT) believe that this is certainly the case. They argue that shifts in the ODB offer a powerful explanation for the likelihood of violent conflict and war in the international environment (

La stratégie militaire « asymétrique » de la Chine

“…De même, l'avantage d'un pays sur un certain adversaire peut ne pas être automatiquement garanti quand il s'agit de faire face à d'autres concurrents d'envergure similaire mais avec des ressources différentes. Le caractère déchi-rant de cette conception de la puissance nationale comme « stratégies » pour un contexte spécifi que peut être clairement démontré par l'abondance d'écrits sur le débat autour de l'équilibre entre l'attaque et la défense (Van Evera 1998 ;Glaser et Kaufmann 1998 ;Hopf 1991 ;Biddle 2001 ;Gortzak et al 2005 ;Davis et al 1998Davis et al -1999. Cependant, toutes les stratégies n'ont pas apporté d'heureux résultats et la spécifi cité du « contexte » limite fortement l'utilité de concevoir la puissance nationale comme des « stratégies », car le fait de comparer la puissance nationale de différents pays à travers l'espace et le temps est méthodolo-giquement inadéquat et défi e toute logique.…”

Offense?Defense Theory: An Empirical Test

“…Scholars have attacked the theoretical basis of the theory, as well as its inability to operationalize the offense–defense balance for empirical testing (see, for example, Levy 1984; Betts 1999). Indeed, even though many scholars have written on the theoretical and methodological aspects of offense–defense theory, few have attempted to test the theory empirically (see Adams 2003–2004; Gortzak, Haftel, and Sweeney 2005). As a result, Keir Leiber's War and the Engineers provides a much‐needed systematic empirical evaluation of this approach.…”