This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Rasler, K. Articles by Thompson, W. R. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Predatory Initiators and Changing Landscapes for Warfare

William R. Thompson

Department of Political Science, Indiana University

The Gartner-Siverson war initiation model's focus on selection bias and initiators selecting vulnerable targets is attractive, but it demands further specification. A predictive model of war initiations might not retain statistical significance after 1945. The authors examine 16 possibly related variables and develop a three-variable initiation model, adding information on target regime type and war duration to the original lone initiator-lone target variable for war initiations between 1816 and 1992. The instability of the initiation model before and after 1945 can be traced to changes in who initiates wars. The predatory initiator model does not predict minor power dyads very well, and these dyads have come to dominate the post-1945 war landscape. Several reasons for this phenomenon are suggested, including the argument that the context in which weaker states initiate wars renders opportunistic predators less likely and less successful.

Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 43, No. 4, 411-433 (1999)
DOI: 10.1177/0022002799043004001


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Caprioli and P. F. Trumbore First Use of Violent Force in Militarized Interstate Disputes, 1980-2001 Journal of Peace Research, November 1, 2006; 43(6): 741 - 749. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. A. Clarke The Phantom Menace: Omitted Variable Bias in Econometric Research Conflict Management and Peace Science, September 1, 2005; 22(4): 341 - 352. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. O. Fordham A Very Sharp Sword: The Influence of Military Capabilities on American Decisions to Use Force Journal of Conflict Resolution, October 1, 2004; 48(5): 632 - 656. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. Caprioli and P. F. Trumbore Identifying `Rogue' States and Testing their Interstate Conflict Behavior European Journal of International Relations, September 1, 2003; 9(3): 377 - 406. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. PICKERING War-weariness and Cumulative Effects: Victors, Vanquished, and Subsequent Interstate Intervention Journal of Peace Research, May 1, 2002; 39(3): 313 - 337. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. S. Bennett and A. C. Stam Research Design and Estimator Choices in the Analysis of Interstate Dyads: When Decisions Matter Journal of Conflict Resolution, October 1, 2000; 44(5): 653 - 685. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. Reed and D. H. Clark War Initiators and War Winners: The Consequences of Linking Theories of Democratic War Success Journal of Conflict Resolution, June 1, 2000; 44(3): 378 - 395. [Abstract] [PDF]