To What Ends Military Power?

The Power to Hurt: Costly Conflict with Completely Informed States

“…First, states may fight as long as they believe that seeking peace prematurely means accepting an unpalatable settlement. I should emphasize that in the model presented here, it is not the threat to use force, but the realization of the power to hurt, or the compellent use of force, that is important (Art 1980). As Schelling (1966, 3) notes, "Unhappily, the power to hurt is often communicated by some performance of it."…”

Russia-Ukraine balance of military power

“…Levy (2008:1) considers "The central proposition of balance-of-power theory (albeit one that has never been tested systematically) is that great powers balance against hegemonic threats." Others have focused on power as relationships (Lasswell and Kaplan, 1950), power as multidimensional (Waltz, 1979), and power as military force (Art, 1980;Baldwin, 2012). Within this stream of literature, I focus on military power that lends itself to quantification in line with the classic power school (Lasswell and Kaplan, 1950;Mearsheimer, 2001) and focus on the military power of Russia relative to Ukraine and Ukraine's game changers.…”

Does 9/11 mark the end of deterrence and the birth of ‘detercion’?

“…Deterrence is thus the threat of retaliation'. 10 He expands this definition further by saying; 'the effectiveness of the threat depends upon a state's ability to convince a potential adversary that it has both the will and the power to punish him severely if he undertakes the undesirable action in question. Deterrence therefore employs force peacefully … If the threat has to be carried out, deterrence by definition has failed'.…”