State arms races mirror single male-male animal contests, not evolutionary turnover

Evidence

We’ve identified two of the three critical ingredients for arms races: intense competition, generally arising among males as they battle for access to females, and ecological situations that cause resources to be localized and economically defensible. There’s one final ingredient, and it involves the details of the fights themselves—the way that males face each other in battle. Males must face each other one on one, rather than all together in a scramble. For bigger weapons to perform better than smaller ones, the battles must be matched and “symmetrical,” with comparably armed contestants challenging each other face-to-face. Oddly, this last ingredient has been almost entirely overlooked by biologists. To appreciate its significance, we must turn instead to attrition models of military forces, and to the century-old insights of an eclectic automotive and aeronautical engineer. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 226 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Cicada-killer wasps experience intense male competition for localized resources (buried females), but they lack elaborate weapons. … Both cicada-killer wasps and horseshoe crabs face intense competition for females who are localized and defensible, the first two conditions for an arms race. But fights unfold as scrambles rather than duels. They lack the condition of Lanchester’s linear law, and large weapons are not cost-effective. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 242 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Fortification-artillery escalation mirrors predator-prey arms races, not rival contests; Human and animal arms races follow parallel evolutionary dynamics — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 463; Extreme skew in mating success drives arms-race escalation in weaponry (+2 more)

Related

• Intense competition without duel structure does not drive weapon evolution. (similarity 0.92)
• Fortification-artillery escalation mirrors predator-prey arms races, not rival contests (similarity 0.89)
• Symmetrical one-on-one fights are a neglected prerequisite for weapon arms races (similarity 0.88)
• Specific conditions are required before weapons escalate into an arms race (similarity 0.87)
• Human and animal arms races follow parallel evolutionary dynamics (similarity 0.87)
• Three conditions must align to trigger an animal weapons arms race. (similarity 0.86)
• Extreme skew in mating success drives arms-race escalation in weaponry (similarity 0.85)
• Balancing selection normally curbs weapon size until some lineages escape into runaway arms races (similarity 0.85)
• Specific ecological circumstances must align before weapon arms races begin (similarity 0.85)
• Animal and human fights both hinge on whether duels or gang-ups occur (similarity 0.84)
• Interstate war escalates like a contest between rival crabs (similarity 0.83)
• Identical circumstances trigger and collapse arms races in animals and humans. (similarity 0.83)
• Arms races inevitably stall as weapon costs neutralize reproductive benefits (similarity 0.83)
• One-on-one duels favor weapon evolution while chaotic scrambles do not. (similarity 0.83)
• Social competition environments evolve in tandem with weapons, unlike fluctuating physical environments (similarity 0.83)

Broader Connections

• Symmetrical one-on-one fights are a neglected prerequisite for weapon arms races #corroborates (0.85) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 226
• Intense competition without duel structure does not drive weapon evolution. #corroborates (0.80) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 242
• Extreme skew in mating success drives arms-race escalation in weaponry #qualifies (0.70)
• Human and animal arms races follow parallel evolutionary dynamics #qualifies (0.50) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 463