Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:27:00.851Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Military Technology Races

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 August 2003

Get access

Extract

Because of the nature of modern weapons, significant innovations in arms technology have the potential to induce dramatic changes in the international distribution of power. Consider, for example, the “strategic defense initiative” (SDI), a program initiated by the United States in the early 1980s. Had the program been successfully completed, it might have led to a substantial devaluation of Soviet nuclear capabilities and put the United States in a very dominant position. It should not then come as a surprise that interstate rivalry, especially among super powers, often takes the form of a race for technological superiority. Mary Acland-Hood claims that although the United States and the Soviet Union together accounted for roughly half of the world's military expenditures in the early 1980s, their share of world military research and development (R&D) expenditures was about 80 percent. As further proof of the perceived importance of R&D, note that whereas the overall U.S. defense budget increased by 38 percent (from $225.1 billion to $311.6 billion in real terms) from 1981 to 1987, military R&D spending increased by 100 percent (from $20.97 billion to $41.96 billion). Moreover, before World War II military R&D absorbed on average less than 1 percent of the military expenditure of major powers, but since then it has grown to 11–13 percent. The emphasis on military technology is bound to become more pronounced in the future as R&D becomes the main arena for interstate competition.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The IO Foundation 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acland-Hood, Mary. 1984. Statistics of Military Research and Development Expenditure. In SIPRI Yearbook 1984. World Armaments and Disarmament. London and Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Acland-Hood, Mary. 1986. Military Research and Development. In Arms and Disarmament: SIPRI Findings, edited by Marek Thee, 23–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brams, Steven J., and D., Marc Kilgour. 1988. Game Theory and National Security. New York: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce. 1981. The War Trap. New Haven, Conn.:Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Bruce, and David, Lalman. 1992. War and Reason: Domestic and International Imperatives. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fudenberg, Drew, Richard, Gilbert, Joseph, Stiglitz, and Jean, Tirole. 1983. Preemption, Leapfrogging, and Competition in Patent Races. European Economic Review 22: 331.Google Scholar
Greenwood, Ted. 1975. Making the MIRV: A Study of Defense Decision Making. Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M., and Carl, Shapiro. 1987. Dynamic R&D Competition. The Economic Journal 97: 37287.Google Scholar
Harris, Christopher, and John, Vickers. 1987. Racing with Uncertainty. Review of Economic Studies 54 (1):121.Google Scholar
Hirao, Yukiko. 1994. Quality Versus Quantity in Arms Races. Southern Economic Journal 2:96—103.Google Scholar
Huntington, Samuel P. 1958. Arms Races: Prerequisites and Results. Public Policy 8:4186.Google Scholar
Intriligator, Michael, and Dagobert L., Brito. 1976. Formal Models of Arms Races. Journal of Peace Science 2:7788.Google Scholar
Intriligator, Michael, and Dagobert L., Brito. 1984. Can Arms Races Lead to the Outbreak of War? Journal of Confict Resolution 28 (1):6384.Google Scholar
Koubi, Vally. 1998. Interstate Military Technology Races and Arms Control Agreements. Journal of Confict and Peace Management 16 (1):5775.Google Scholar
Senate Committee on Armed Services. 1968. Status of U.S. Strategic Power. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
SIPRI. 1974. The Dynamics of World Military Expenditure. SIPRI Yearbook 1974. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Sorenson, D. S. 1980. Modeling the Nuclear Arms Race: A Search for Stability. Journal of Peace Science 4:16985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, Steve. 1991. Cooperation and Discord in U.S.–Soviet Arms Control. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Weinberger, Caspar W. 1986. Annual Report to the Congress, Year 1987. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
Weinberger, Caspar W., Peter, Schweizer, and Margaret, Thatcher. 1998. The Next War. London:Berkshire House.Google Scholar
Wolfson, Michael. 1985. Notes on Economic Warfare. Journal of Confict Management and Peace Science 8:119.Google Scholar
York, Herbert F. 1970. Race to Oblivion: A Participant’s View of the Arms Race. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar