Though there are exceptions, most of us pride ourselves on being rational. Political leaders are particularly eager to be seen as such. Because of this, it is important to consider the whole concept of rationality in international relations and see whether the decision makers and students of the area are justified in their beliefs in their own rationality, in particular as regards their beliefs and decisions about violent conflict. This is what I attempt to do in this book. Despite its academic, almost clinical analysis, it is about violence, wars and rumours of wars.

I discuss the problems in terms of the field which is sometimes known as ‘Conflict Analysis’. I give an account of some aspects of this fascinating discipline, though I have tried to go beyond an account and give an interpretation of the field, putting it in the broader context of the nature of a social science and the concept of rationality. It is a vast and developing field, and I do not pretend to be comprehensive. To illustrate my argument, I have described some of its more important aspects, giving some flavour both of the work done in the field and the way in which social scientists work. Above all, I wish to convey the notion that social scientists, like natural scientists, are very concerned to ask what the grounds are for believing in the various propositions they make in their disciplines.