The causes of war - an interesting (to me anyway) argument

[Mark_Everson]

Hi all:

I just finished reading the book called "The Causes Of War" (1973) by Geoffrey Blainey. Now, I haven't read much in this area specifically, but the author had an argument that I found striking. Of course there are many and varied reasons for why different wars start. However, he claimed that the basic root of most wars was a misunderstanding of the relative power of the states involved. To paraphrase in my own words, at least one of the states involved in a war is probably over-estimating its chances of winning by a fair amount. The reasoning is fairly simple. If both sides had a realistic idea of each side's chances, there would likely be some sort of bargain possible to resolve the situation (whatever it is) short of war. Resolve in this case may mean one side ceding territory, or even allowing itself to be conquered without a shot being fired. And also the 'realistic appraisal of military power' requirement in this theory may be necessary, but certainly isn't the only factor leading to any given war.

Anyway, that's my brief synopsis, in one paragraph, of a book that's nearly 300 pages long. What do those of you know about such things think of his argument?

Regards,
-Mark
[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited August 02, 1999).]

[Hrafnkell]

I´m not all that knowledgable about this field, but to me Mr. Blaineys point is valid, although I wouldn´t give him much credit for it because this argument is so obvious. Determining the exact military prowes of your as well as the enemy´s is almost impossible. Even today with all our techno-gadgets and info-flow it´s very difficult. Also, stating that this lack of knowledge caused wars is flipping tings around, it didn´t cause wars, it just didn´t prevent them. If the military power of states was the sole factor for causing wars we would be up to our necks in wars every minute, there is always states who are, or at least think they are, stronger than someone else. Of course I haven´t read Mr. Bailey´s book (although I think I´ve heard of him, is he Australian?) so I´m sure he has many other interesting things to say, but at least I think this argument of his to be a little strange. That is not to say that the reasons for what causes wars are not important, indeed they are, and I think we must look closesly into this in order to render this faithfully in the game. But I won´t discuss that further for the moment (I´m in a hurry :-)).

Keli.

[Paul Crocker]

As Hrafnkell put it, Bailey makes an obvious point, and as Hrafnkell also states, it is definitely impossible to precisely estimate your own strength as well as the enemy's. We've gotten pretty good at counting tanks and fighters, but the intangibles are what often seem to really direct the flow of battle, and these are usually impossible to pin down. They include things like morale, training (it can very tremendously within an army and from unit to unit), fatigue levels, and (here I go again!) leadership, especially at the company and BN level.

There are many good examples, modern and ancient, of lopsided battles that seemed to have little to do with the troop ratios. These include the 6-day war (Arabs and Israelis, where the Israelis were seriously outnumbered and still outfought the Arabs - of course they DID have better equipment, but most experts attribute thier victory to superior leadership and morale).

Another example is the American "defeat" in Vietnam. Militarily, the American army dominated the battlefield (losses of 2,000,000 Vietnamese to 50,000 U.S. KIA), but politically (what really counts!) the U.S. was absolutely defeated, despite superior numbers and technology. I'm not sure how anyone could estimate or assign a number to the intangibles in that war...

I guess to summarize, I think that intelligence IS key, since the side with the better intel (often tactical) usually wins the battle (if not the war). I definitely think it would be wise to factor this into the sim, since it's so important historically (eg cracking Enigma in WWII). I'm not sure how strong of an impact good intel has on starting or preventing wars, however. Would the Japanese have attacked Pearl Harbor had they had 99% reliable intel on U.S. industrial capabilities? (I've heard many experts say "Yes" since the attack was based as much on Japanese pride as on military necessity...of course we'll never know for sure!)

I'm not sure if this reply was of much help, Mark, but I tried JMHO!

[Mark_Everson]

Gentlemen:

I am guilty of not putting the argument forth with much verbal precision. The point of course was that very poor analysis of at least one side's military capability was the deciding factor in wars that Were Not Prevented (as you say Hrafnkell) by some form of arbitration. Obviously it isn't the case that mis-estimation of another power's military might causes war. Just when all the myriad other factors that cause wars are present, such force capability estimation is the last 'check' to war. If this last threshold is overcome then war will break out if the mis-estimation is a) severe, and b) usually in the direction of under-estimation of enemy power. Its not in determining the potential enemy's precise power that the problem lies, its in blowing the estimation by factors of 2 or 3.

Assymetries in power are Not the point. If both sides accept the power equation they can Deal based on it. The weaker state may not Like it, but it will frequently deal rather than fight. (The following is my example, don't blame Blainey for it ) For example, when Chamberlain abandoned Czechoslovakia (sans the Seudeten(sp?) land already taken) for 'peace in our time', the Czechs didn't fight (I think I'm remembering correctly) and simply gave up. This was based on a probably realistic appraisal that they alone, betrayed by their erstwhile allies, stood no chance whatsoever against Hitler's forces. Had the Czechs drastically underestimated the military capabilities of their enemies' forces they would have fought a war.

BTW Hrafnkell, He's probably the guy you're thinking of since he is an Australian. And Paul, I think we already have planned many of the things you're talking about. We just don't have the specifics nailed down yet. But I'm sure we'll have both 'macro' and 'micro' intelligence issues affecting wars and battles in Clash. Issues of one side's effectiveness per combattant being Much higher than the other's will definitely be included.

-Mark

[Druid2]

This sounds more like an after-the-fact analysis based on the results of the war. A modern-day attempt to "prove" that negotiation is "always" the preferred solution.

*OF COURSE* there will always be something that the loser "should have forseen" before starting the war...

Some wars are started with external powers for internal, political reasons.

And what about the cases where the WINNER started the war? Did Caesar misunderstand something about the Gaul-ians? What errors in judgement did Napoleon make --(ok.ok. except for the last few.. which were BATTLEFIELD errors.. oh yeah.. we dont discuss Russian winter do we?)
Have the Israelis miscalculated in dealing with Arab armies?

Sometimes it is precisely the ability to *cause* misjudgement in the enemy camp that allows one side to win.

[TreborPugly]

Hello,
Is it possible that realistic causes of war aren't really appropriate to a game like this? Isn't the goal of the game to dominate the world? I'm new to this type of computer game, so my experience is from board games like Risk, so maybe I'm wrong. Do people play games like Civilization with any other goal in mind? If not, then the game is really a simulation of a world with meglomaniacs in charge of all the countries. Or is the game with AI supposed to be one meglomaniac (the player) and all the AI players are a variety of "realistic" leaders.
One thing to make the game more realistic is to saddle the player with a societal imperative. Some societies are keen on just maintaining a certain lifestyle. Some want to expand sufficiently so their children get their own land. Some might want to control just a particular holy region. This sort of game seems to encourage the player to boost population growth as much as possible. (I've played the Civ II evolution project game C2E)
I guess my point is that realistic causes of war only need to be considered if the game objective is only to ride out a world simulation, rather than to dominate the world. If the goal of any real player is to dominate, then that should be the goal of AI players too. Which means war whenever you can win, don't need the resources somewhere else, and you'll be able to support and hold what you win. Otherwise be diplomatic until you can backstab your allies!

[Mark_Everson]

Druid:

I don't think the argument has anything to do with PC, although I could, of course, be wrong. All your points are valid, except perhaps the following:

>And what about the cases where the WINNER started the war?
If the winner started the war, it fits perfectly well into the theory... all that would mean is that the loser didn't sufficiently recognize the power of the future winner enough to cave in to their demands.

Now, in the case of genocidal demands, obviously anyone would be stupid Not to fight.

Anyway, his thesis didn't seem obvious to me, but I think we're flogging a dead theory here.


TreborPugly:

Hi, welcome to the forum. This particular discussion actually doesn't have anything to do with Clash. I just came across something that I thought was interesting, and wanted to hear what people had to say about it. And boy did I .

The goal of the game is Not Necessarily to dominate the world. I personally think there should be a variety of ways of winning. We haven't completely thought everything out in terms of how you win, but your notion of difference societal imperatives summarizes one of the ways we could go. Clearly, it is in the best interests of the peaceful types of civ to ally to contain the ones that want to conquer the world. Some may want to take as a goal to have the whole world as economically advanced as possible, or all be of one religion. Or, if the player likes, they can decide that all the AIs should be bent on global domination.

At least My reason for making the game historically accurate, where that does not conflict with playability, is that the stuff that happened in history is a lot more interesting than what happens in a typical civ game IMO. For instance, until decent communications are available, expanding rapidly in every direction is most likely to just get you a fragmented and revolting empire in Clash. So while I think that world conquest is a valid way to win Clash, I think it should be vastly harder than it is in your typical 4X game.