IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v82y1988i02p423-443_08.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Extended Deterrence and the Outbreak of War

Author

Listed:
  • Huth, Paul K.

Abstract

Successful deterrence, it is argued, requires a combination of military capabilities and bargaining behavior that enhances a defender's credibility without provoking a potential attacker. Hypotheses on the political and military conditions under which extended-immediate deterrence is likely to succeed or fail are formulated and tested by probit analysis on fifty-eight historical cases. The empirical results indicate that (1) the military capability of the defender to deny the potential attacker a quick and decisive victory on the battlefield enhances deterrence; (2) a policy of reciprocity in diplomacy and military actions by the defender contributes strongly to deterrence success; and (3) a past record of backing down under pressure or intransigence in confrontations with the potential attacker increases the likelihood of deterrence failure.

Suggested Citation

  • Huth, Paul K., 1988. "Extended Deterrence and the Outbreak of War," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(2), pages 423-443, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:82:y:1988:i:02:p:423-443_08
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055400085105/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thorin M. Wright & Toby J. Rider, 2014. "Disputed territory, defensive alliances and conflict initiation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(2), pages 119-144, April.
    2. Catherine C. Langlois, 2012. "Power and Deterrence in Alliance Relationships," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(2), pages 148-169, April.
    3. Paul Poast, 2013. "Issue linkage and international cooperation: An empirical investigation," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 30(3), pages 286-303, July.
    4. Brian Benjamin Crisher, 2014. "Inequality Amid Equality: Military Capabilities and Conflict Behavior in Balanced Dyads," International Interactions, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(2), pages 246-269, March.
    5. Klaus Abbink & Lu Dong & Lingbo Huang, 2021. "Arms Races and Conflict: Experimental Evidence," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 131(637), pages 1883-1904.
    6. James Meernik, 1999. "Force and Influence in International Crises," Conflict Management and Peace Science, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 17(1), pages 103-131, February.
    7. Ross A. Miller, 1999. "Regime Type, Strategic Interaction, and the Diversionary Use of Force," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(3), pages 388-402, June.
    8. Samuel S. G. Wu, 1990. "To Attack or Not to Attack," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(3), pages 531-552, September.
    9. Daniel S. Geller, 1990. "Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence, and Crisis Escalation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 34(2), pages 291-310, June.
    10. Kyle Beardsley & Victor Asal, 2009. "Winning with the Bomb," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(2), pages 278-301, April.
    11. Alexander H. Montgomery & Scott D. Sagan, 2009. "The Perils of Predicting Proliferation," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 53(2), pages 302-328, April.
    12. James H. Lebovic, 2002. "The Law of Small Numbers," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 46(4), pages 455-483, August.
    13. John Tyson Chatagnier, 2015. "Conflict bargaining as a signal to third parties," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(2), pages 237-268, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:82:y:1988:i:02:p:423-443_08. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.