Hacker News Reader

Comment by pxtail | Hacker News Reader

> Another, more critical reason is that some weaknesses are escalatory - they encourage escalation by the enemy. Chinese leaders, seeing the US lacks that capacity, are incentivised to escalate peace to conflict, conflict to war, a small war to a large war. Escalation is the bane of international relations - it is systemic and often cannot be controlled, leading to catastrophes that nobody wants but nobody can stop. Any professional foreign policy carefully constructs situations that are systemically de-escalatory.

Very interesting, can you recommend any source where I could learn more about such international relations mechanics and intricacies?

View on HN

A good starting point would be Hans Morgenthau's Politics Among Nations. He was a German Jewish emigre to the United States, and it was with the help of the Rockefeller Foundation that his book was used to create International Relations departments within universities across the United States in the immediate post-WWII period. Prior to Morgenthau and the Rockefellers, international relations was not its own discipline distinct from history, philosophy, law, jurism, etc. Morgenthau's book was the standard textbook for international relations for several decades, and in it he tries to outline European realpolitik for his liberal American audience. His is still probably the most literate, sophisticated, and nuanced international relations introduction.

On the topic of a systemic drive to increase ones power at the expense of others, leading to escalatory and conflictual international dynamics, your go-to book is John Mearsheimer's The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. He is also in the realist school of thought like Morgenthau, although you'll find that his style of writing is much punchier and pugilistic than Morgenthau's.

On the attempt to build systemically de-escalatory effects at the international level, I would pick up a copy of G John Ikenberry's After Victory. He describes how victorious countries following major wars would create a new set of rules for the international system, and how at least some of those post-war regimes attempted to reduce the returns to power in order to increase the stability of the system and reduce perceptions of threat and insecurity by weaker states. Note that he worked in the State Department during Bush Sr administration and has that direct experience of attempting to ensure order and stability following the end of the Cold War.

If you want to read case studies in escalation toward a war that no single actor actually wanted, I recommend Stephen Van Evera's Causes of War with a focus on his study of WWI. It goes well paired with Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August.

It's been a long time ... these days I just read about current applications of it ...

WWI is a classic study of it: Very broadly, many participants didn't want the war but the escalatory system of alliances, military capabilities, risks, etc. took it out of their hands. My vague memory is Barbara Tuchman's The Guns Of August focuses on it. But you can do better than my poor memory with some online research (see below).

You can also see it applied and discussed over and over in current international relations, though unfortunately without the context of the broader mechanisms and techniques: You can see the US finding ways to respond to Iran and Russia that are effective deterrents but non-escalatory, which they openly talk about. A strike on Tehran or the Iranian navy would be escalatory - they would have to strike back or lose credibility, domestically and internationally, and there would be the strong emotional component of dead Iranians. Hitting a supply depot in Syria is a different matter - costly to Iran, but not escalatory. The Iranians aren't idiots either - they are not assasinating American generals, for example.

If you want to read more:

* Look at professional international relations (IR) publications aimed at the public, especially Foreign Affairs (more essays, but by world-leading experts, practicioners and officials), Foreign Policy, and IR articles in Political Science Quarterly. The book reviews are especially good - the expert reviewers explain the book and provide context of other points of view, current and historical beliefs in the field, etc.

* Think tanks are prominent in IR and publish a bunch of readable things - better than reading the best journalism, in many cases, in terms of pure knowledge. But you need to be careful - some think tanks are scholarly enterprises, some are partisan hacks. IIRC U of Pennsylvania has a list of top think tanks. In IR, some are Brookings, Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (CEIP), RAND, Chatham House. Be wary of Heritage (basically provides retro-cover and talking points for conservative policy, organizing Trump plans), Cato (libertarianism advocates), American Enterprise Institute (corporate conservatives).

* Search with the terms site:.edu and site:.ac.uk

Hope that helps! Really, I'd find a good textbook or take an online course.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com