¹ jervis, Robert, Perception and Misperception in International Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976Google Scholar); and, more notably, Jervis, , “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics 30 (January 1978), 167–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

² Axelrod, Robert, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984Google Scholar).

³ Raiffa, Howard, The Art and Science of Negotiation (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1982Google Scholar).

⁴ Both Huntington, Samuel, in “Arms Races: Prerequisites and Results” Public Policy 8 (1958), 41–86Google Scholar, and Kennedy, Paul, in Strategy and Diplomacy (Ayelsbury, England: Fontana, 1984), 163Google Scholar–78, offer examples of arms races that did not result in war. Huntington's list, which is the more comprehensive of the two, follows: 1. France vs. England 1840–1866 2. France vs. Germany 1874–1894 3. England vs. France and Russia 1884–1904 4. Argentina vs. Chile 1890–1902 5. England vs. Germany 1898–1912 6. England vs. United States 1916–1930 7. Japan vs. United States 1916–1922 8. United States vs. Soviet Union 1946-Kennedy, who concentrates his attention upon only the major powers, recognizes all of the above except Argentina and Chile between 1890 and 1902; there are minor differences in some of the dates.

⁵ Cobden, Richard, The Political Writings of Richard Cobden (London: William Ridgway, 1868Google Scholar); Kennedy (fn. 4); Marder, Arthur J., The Anatomy of British Sea Power (New York: Octagon Books, 1976Google Scholar).

⁶ The key here is the preference structure; for our purposes, the other conditions for a 2 × 2 game do not necessarily have to hold. The sequential-play-of-the-game structure seems the most reasonable in spite of Wagner's argument that one should allow each placer to act conditionally on knowledge of the other's play. See Wagner, R. Harrison, “The Theory of Games and the Problem of International Cooperation,” American Political Science Review 77 (June 1983), 330CrossRefGoogle Scholar–46. This seems more like defining away the problem than solving it: if information moves quickly enough and control is fine enough so that one can respond to an opponent's move after one week, then one models this as a-game-a-week. The analysis in extensive form that is used by Wagner seems unnecessarily cumbersome.

⁷ In order to reduce the number of cases that have to be discussed, the analysis here is carried on with respect to the payoffs of one of the participants rather than to those of the whole game. Once the analysis of the individual orderings has been made, the actual games can be constructed using combinations of preference patterns. Terms such as “Prisoners' Dilemma,” which conventionally refer to symmetric games, are also used for the preference pattern of one of the participants.

⁸ The game Chicken, which violates this condition, has been used by several authors for representing conflict situations. For an example, see Snyder, Glen and Diesing, Paul, Conflict Among Nations: Bargaining, Decision-Making, and System Structure in International Crises (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977Google Scholar). Chicken is highly unstable, however, and not a realistic model for an arms race as continual defection.

⁹ We shall see later that some of these excluded games can lead to arms races when the assumption of perfect information is relaxed.

¹⁰ The terminology for the various games is presented in Snyder and Diesing (fn. 8) and [ervis (fn. 1). Snyder and Diesing use a different selection of games since they are interested in international crises—events of short duration—rather than the more extended arena of arms races. Jervis focuses mostly on Stag Hunt, which is an important sub-case that we deal with in a subsequent section.

¹¹ Richardson, Lewis F., Arms and Insecurity (Chicago: Quadrangle, 1960Google Scholar).

¹² Recent research by Michael Wallace draws a very close connection between arms races and war. See Wallace, , “Arms Races and Escalation: Some New Evidence,” Journal of Conflict Resolution 23 (March, 1979), 3–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Armaments and Escalation” International Studies Quarterly 26 (March 1982), 37–56Google Scholar. Subsequent analysis casts very serious doubt on the relationship, however; see Houweling, Henk W. and Siccama, Jan G., “The Arms Race—War Relationship: Why Serious Disputes Matter,” Arms Control 2 (September 1981), 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar–97.

¹³ Jervis (fn. 1).

¹⁴ Ibid.,

¹⁵ Dyson, Freeman, Weapons and Hope (New York: Harper & Row, 1984Google Scholar).

¹⁶ Cobden (fn. 5), 367.

¹⁷ Colvin, Ian, The Chamberlain Cabinet (New York: Taplinger, 1971Google Scholar).

¹⁸ Taylor, A. J. P., The Strugglefor Mastery in Europe, 1848–1914 (London: Oxford University Press, 1971Google Scholar).

¹⁹ As British Foreign Minister Palmerston wrote after the London Conference: France ought to feel the great advantages which this arrangment confers upon Her. By one stroke of the pen, the whole line of Belgick fortresses, so far as they constituted points of attack upon her territory, at once disappear; and this upon a frontier the nearest to her Capital, and the least protected by defenses of nature or of art. England voluntarily interdicts Herself … while the Northern powers of Europe, of their own accord, close the door through which they would naturally approach the French frontier in the event of hostilities leading them there. France ought therefore to see in this Protocol the most signal and unequivocal proofs of the pacific spirit which animates the other Powers of Europe …

Quoted in Lingelbach, William, “Belgian Neutrality: Its Origin and Interpretation,” American Historical Review 39 (October 1933), 60–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁰ Cobden (fn. 5), 259.

²¹ The question of whether it will in fact slow the arms race is a complex one. One could argue that the other side will build fewer offensive weapons since the marginal benefit of each is reduced; one could also argue that more will be built since more will be required to obtain a given objective. Without further assumptions, either result is possible. Suppose that one side established defenses so that each weapon of the other side is 10% less effective than it was. This has two simultaneous effects. First, it raises by 10% the price of what might be called a weapon effectiveness unit; that is, the amount of a weapon required to accomplish a given objective. Second, it increases the number of weapons required per weapon effectiveness unit by 10%. If the price elasticity of demand for weapon effectiveness units is — I, then the 10% increase in price will result in a 10% decrease in the number of weapon effectiveness units purchased. However, since 10% more weapons are needed for each effectiveness unit, the number of weapons remains the same. If this elasticity is greater than — i (say — 0.5), the number of weapons built will increase; whereas, if the elasticity is less than — 1 (say — 1.5), the number of weapons built will decrease.

²² Raiffa (fn. 3), 131 ff.

²³ Axelrod (fn. 2).

²⁴ Stephen Van Evera, “Why Cooperation Failed in 1914,” pp. 80–117 of this collection.

²⁵ Cobden (fn. 5).

²⁶ Sprout, Harold and Sprout, Margaret, Toward a New Order of Sea Power: American Naval Policy and the World Scene, 1918–1922, rev. ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1943Google Scholar; reprinted by Greenwood Press, 1969); Hoover, Robert A., Arms Control: Interwar Naval Limitation Agreements (Denver: Monograph Series in World Affairs, University of Denver, Vol. 17, Book 3, 1985Google Scholar).

²⁷ Wright, Quincy, The Existing Legal Situation as It Relates to the Conflict in the Far East (New York: Institute of Pacific Relations, 1939Google Scholar).

²⁸ Ibid., 102.

²⁹ Talbott, Strobe, Endgame: The Inside Story of SALT II (New York: Harper & Row, 1979Google Scholar).

³⁰ Davis, Calvin DeArmond, The United States and the First Hague Peace Conference NY: Cornell University Press, 1962Google Scholar).

³¹ Horelick, Arnold and Rush, Myron, Strategic Power and Soviet Foreign Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966Google Scholar).

³² Cobden (fn. 5); Hirst, F. W.,The Six Panics (London: Methuen, 1913Google Scholar).

³³ Cobden (fn. 5), 240.

³⁴ Gooch, G. P., Franco-German Relations, 1817–1914 (London: Longmans, Green, 1923Google Scholar).

³⁵ Enthoven, Alain and Smith, Keith, How Much is Enough? (New York: Harper & Row, 1971), 178Google Scholar.

³⁶ Quoted in Kauffman, William, The McNamara Strategy (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 284Google Scholar.

³⁷ Jervis (fn. 1).

³⁸ May, Ernest R., ”Lessons” of the Past: The Use and Misuse of History in American Foreign Policy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), 33Google Scholar.

³⁹ Ibid., 35.

⁴⁰ Finlay, David, Holsti, Ole, and Fagen, Richard, Enemies in Politics (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967), 60Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Allison, Graham, The Essence of Decision (Boston: Little, Brown, 1971), 142Google Scholar. An interesting line of inquiry challenges this account of the missiles in Turkey; see Bernstein, Barton, “The Cuban Missile Crisis: Trading the Jupiters in Turkey?” Political Science Quarterly 95 (Spring 1985), 97–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴² Halperin, Morton, Bureaucratic Politics and Foreign Policy (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1974Google Scholar).

⁴³ George Quester, Offense and Defense in the International System (New York: Wiley, 977).

⁴⁴ Kemp, Anthony, The Maginot Line: Myth and Reality (London: Frederick Warne, 1981Google Scholar).

⁴⁵ Taylor (fn. 18), 404.

⁴⁶ Axelrod (fn. 2), 192ff.

⁴⁷ Ibid., 182ff.

⁴⁸ Ibid., 138 and 186ff.

⁴⁹ Hirst (fn. 32), 39.

⁵⁰ Schelling, Thomas, “Reciprocal Measures for Arms Stabilization,” in Brennan, Donald, ed., Arms Control, Disarmaments, and National Security (New York: George Braziller, 1961), 175Google Scholar. More recently, Russell Leng has shown the effectiveness of reciprocity-based tactics in Soviet-American relations. “Reagan and the Russians: Crisis Bargaining Beliefs and the Historical Record,” American Political Science Review 78 (June 1984), 338CrossRefGoogle Scholar–55.

⁵¹ Burr, Robert, By Reason or Force: Chile and the Balancing of Power in South America, 1830–1905 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1965Google Scholar).