States decide war by expected gains versus the no-war baseline, not damage comparison

Evidence

But in neither case was such a simple yardstick appropriate. States do not decide to go to war on the basis of comparisons between how much they will suffer and how much harm will come to their adversaries. If decision makers are even minimally rational, they compare their estimates of the probable gains and losses of going to war with what the state expects the situation to be if it does not attack. Thus an aggressor could be deterred even if a state thought it could inflict more damage than it would receive or, in other circumstances, could attack even if it thought this balance was reversed. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2607 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Rational states weigh expected gains versus not attacking, not damage ratios — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2607; War outcomes are unpredictable from force composition comparisons — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2593; Superior weaponry does not guarantee success in a counterforce war — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2603 (+2 more)

Broader Connections

• Rational states weigh expected gains versus not attacking, not damage ratios #corroborates (0.99) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2607
• The overall balance of forces imposes the form of war #complicates (0.72)