A Critique of “A Critique of The War Trap”
- 1 June 1984
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Journal of Conflict Resolution
- Vol. 28 (2) , 341-360
- https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002784028002007
Abstract
By applying the criteria suggested by Lakatos for comparing rival theories, I show that the expected utility research program developed in The War Trap has yielded an integrative, fairly comprehensive theory that has provided a better empirical understanding of international conflict than any widely tested alternative. I go on to demonstrate that Majeski and Sylvan are mistaken with regard to their criticisms of the accuracy, importance, relevance, and fairness of the theory set out in The War Trap. Also, I show that they have misunderstood fundamental aspects of the theory and have, therefore, attributed premises and characteristics to it that it does not possess.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Resolve, Capabilities, and the Outcomes of Interstate Disputes, 1816-1976Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1983
- Realignment in International Treaty OrganizationsInternational Studies Quarterly, 1983
- Realpolitik and the Road to War: An Analysis of Attributes and BehaviorInternational Studies Quarterly, 1983
- Armaments and Escalation: Two Competing HypothesesInternational Studies Quarterly, 1982
- Attributes of National Alliance Membership and War Participation, 1815-1965American Journal of Political Science, 1980
- Choosing Sides in WarsInternational Studies Quarterly, 1979
- Arms Races and EscalationJournal of Conflict Resolution, 1979
- The Methodology of Scientific Research ProgrammesPublished by Cambridge University Press (CUP) ,1978
- Alliance Behavior in Balance of Power Systems: Applying a Poisson Model to Nineteenth-Century EuropeAmerican Political Science Review, 1975
- The calculus of deterrenceJournal of Conflict Resolution, 1963