offense-defense theory and its critics

Security Studies

Volumn 4, Issue 4, 1995, Pages 660-691

  Lynn Jones, Sean M ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0000059858     PISSN: 09636412     EISSN: 15561852     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09636419509347600     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Robert Jervis, “Cooperation Under the Security Dilemma,” World Politics 30, no. 2 (January 1978): 167–214.
2. Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics (Cambridge: Cambndge University Press, 1981),59–63.
3. Richard Bean, “War and the Birthofthe Nation State,” Journal ofEconomic History 33, no. 1 (March 1973): 207–221.
4. Malcolm W. Hoag, “On Stability in Deterrent Races,” in Morton A. Kaplan, ed., The Revolution in World Politics (New York: Wiley, 1962),388–410.
5. George W. Downs, David M. Rocke, and Randolph M. Siverson, “Arms Races and Cooperation,” in Kenneth A. aye, ed., Cooperation Under Anarchy (princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), 118–146.
6. Robert Powell, –Guns, Butter and Anarchy,” American Political Science Review 87, no. 1 (March 1993): 115–132.
7. Stephen M. Walt, The Origins of Alliances (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1987), esp. 24–25, n. 31; 165–167.
8. Stephen Van Evera, “The Cult of the Offensive and the Origins of the First World War,” International Security 9, no. 1 (summer 1984): 58–107.
9. Ted Hopf, “Polarity, the Offense-Defense Balance, and War,” American Political Science Review 85, no. 2 June 1991): 475–494.
10. Charles L. Glaser and Ted Hopf, “Models of Soviet American Relations and Their Implications for Future Russian-American Relations,” in William Zimmerman, ed., Beyond the Soviet Threat: Rethinking American Security Policy in a New Era (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992), 155–184.
11. Robert Powell, “Absolute and Relative Gains in International Relations Theory,” American Political Science Review 85, no. 4 (December 1991): 1303–1320.
12. Jack S. Levy, “The Offensive/Defensive Balance of Military Technology: A Theoretical and Historical Analysis,” International Studies Quarterly 28, no. 2 (june 1984): 219–238.
13. John J. Mearsheimer, Conventional Deterrence (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1983), 24–27.
14. Jonathan Shimshoni, “Technology, Military Advantage, and World War I: A Case for Military Entrepreneurship,” International Security 15, no. 3 (winter 1990/91): 187–215.
15. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics (Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1979).
16. Joseph M. Grieco, Cooperation Among Nations: Europe, America, and Non-Tariff Barriers to Trade (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1990).
17. Robert O. Keohane, “Realism, Neorealism and the Study of World Polltics,” in Keohane, ed., Neorealism and its Critics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1986), 1–26.
18. Shai Feldman, Israeli Nuclear Deterrence (New York: Columbia University Press, 1982)
19. Kenneth N. Waltz, “Nuclear Myths and Political Realities,” American Political Science Review 84, no. 3 (September 1990): 731–745.
20. Robert Gilpin, War and Change in World Politics, 94–95.
21. Scott D. Sagan, “1914 Revisited: Allies, Offense, and Instability,” International Security 11, no. 2 (fall 1986): 151–176.
22. Bernard Brodie, “Technological Change, Strate,gic Doctrine, and Political Outcomes,” in Klaus Knorr, ed., Historical Dimensions oj National Security Problems (Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1976), 263–306.
23. Steven E. Miller, “Technology and War,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 41, no. 11 (December 1985): 47–48.
24. Trevor N. Dupuy, The Evolution of Weapons and Waifare (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1980), 301–307.
25. Edward L. Katzenbach, Jr., “The Horse Cavalry in the Twentieth Century: A Study in Policy Response,” in Art and Waltz, eds., The Use of Force, 161–180.