Citation

Houweling HW, Siccama JG. J. Peace Res. 1988; 25(1): 43-56.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1988, SAGE Publishing)

DOI

10.1177/002234338802500105

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This article draws attention to the danger that deliberate escalation will transform into compulsory escalation. According to Clausewitz' philosophy, the use of violence is an instrument of policy. Nuclear deterrence would have brought an end to that philosophy, since the costs of nuclear war always exceed the benefits. However, Clausewitz also suggests the possibility that a war may escalate beyond the break-even point (where cost is equal to benefit) if a nation expects to lose unilaterally. In the nuclear era, the limited use of nuclear weapons may very easily escalate into absolute war because the target feels that its survival is at stake. This argument closely resembles Riezler's theory of bluff developed on the eve of World War I and the possibility that escalation may become uncontrollable in a Krieg aus Not (war from necessity). Just as in 1914, a third world war might break out not on the basis of a calculation that the benefits of warfare are greater than the costs, but as a consequence of compulsory escalation of a crisis or a limited war in which one side perceives that its existence is threatened. Since planning for limited nuclear war and deliberate escalation enhances the probability of compulsory escalation, a nuclear posture of minimum deterrence should be preferred.