Citation

Diehl PF. J. Peace Res. 1983; 20(3): 205-212.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1983, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/002234338302000301

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

The relationship between arms races and war is a critical consideration in both peace research and strategic planning. This study reconsiders the work of Michael Wallace which has postulated that arms races significantly increase the probability of a serious dispute escalating to war. A critique of Wallace's coding procedures and arms race index precedes an attempt to replicate his findings. In the replication, serious disputes, taken from the Correlates of War Project, among major powers during the years 1816-1970 serve as the population to be tested. Adjustments in coding and index construction from the Wallace work are made. It was discovered that only 25% of those disputes preceded by a mutual military buildup escalated to war, while almost 77% of the wars in this population were preceded by periods lacking armaments competition. Controls for inter-century differences and unilateral military buildups failed to alter this apparent lack of a relationship between arms races and dispute escalation. Differences with Wallace's study are analyzed and the implications for peace research discussed.