Limited war’s main function is signaling escalation risk, not local military gain.
Evidence
If one of the functions of limited war, then, is to pose the deliberate risk of all-out war, in order to intimidate the enemy and to make pursuit of his limited objectives intolerably risky to him, the usual precepts for behavior in limited war need revision. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 431
Categorization
- XREF: Connects to the reader’s Gambetta framing: the Mafia’s local enforcement also signals a larger capacity for disorder that exceeds the specific transaction. — connects to: Limited war deters partly by exposing both sides to uncontrollable risk of escalation — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 425; Refusing to prepare for limited war can be a deliberate deterrent strategy — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 200; Threatening a small risk beats threatening certainty when the enemy’s controllability is uncertain. — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 427 (+4 more)
Related
- Limited war deters partly by exposing both sides to uncontrollable risk of escalation (similarity 0.92)
- Refusing to prepare for limited war can be a deliberate deterrent strategy (similarity 0.83)
- Unforeseeable escalation risk alone can deter aggression even among cautious rational actors. (similarity 0.83)
- Threatening a small risk beats threatening certainty when the enemy’s controllability is uncertain. (similarity 0.80)
- A losing side rationally abandons containment for deliberate risk-creation. (similarity 0.80)
- Governments can enter major wars inadvertently through imperfect decision processes (similarity 0.79)
Broader Connections
- Threatening a small risk beats threatening certainty when the enemy’s controllability is uncertain.
#expands(0.90) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 427 - Refusing to prepare for limited war can be a deliberate deterrent strategy
#responds-to(0.85) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 200 - Threats require commitment, not comparative damage to both parties
#expands(0.80) — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 296 - Risk-free warfare erodes the legal principles justifying the right to kill in war.
#responds-to(0.80) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 128 - Victories serve purposes beyond deciding battles.
#expands(0.75) — Garrett Mattingly, The Defeat of the Spanish Armada, 389 - Bureaucratic war preparation can produce anticlimax rather than combat
#exemplifies(0.70) — Julien Gracq, Balcony in the Forest, 49