World Politics
Volume 50, Number 1, October 1997
E-ISSN: 1086-3338 Print ISSN: 0043-8871
DOI: 10.1353/wp.1997.0027
E-ISSN: 1086-3338 Print ISSN: 0043-8871
DOI: 10.1353/wp.1997.0027
Betts, Richard K., 1947- Political science attends to causes and consequences of war but
only fitfully welcomes study of its conduct, because few grasp how
much the dynamics of combat shape politics. Bernard Brodie
called for development of strategic studies on the model of the
discipline of economics, because neither the military nor academia
treated the subject rigorously. His call was answered in the early
cold war, with mixed results. Theories about nuclear deterrence
burgeoned while empirical studies of war lagged. The late-cold war
impasse in nuclear strategy, rooted in nato doctrine, shifted
attention to conventional military operations and empirically
grounded theory. Since the cold war, research on general
theoretical questions about war and peace has been prospering,
but education in military matters has been eroding. Interdisciplinary
strategic studies integrate political and military elements of
international conflict, but there is no recognized discipline of
military science; military analysis is smuggled into political science
and history departments, where it is resisted by calls to
conceptualize security broadly or focus on purely theoretical work.
If serious military studies are squeezed out of universities, there will
be no qualified civilian analysts to provide independent expertise in
policy and budget debates, and decisions on war and peace will be
made irresponsibly by uninformed civilians or by the professional
military alone.
Should Strategic Studies Survive?
World Politics - Volume 50, Number 1, October 1997, pp. 7-33
The Johns Hopkins University Press