Week 11: Strategic Use of Military Force

Question 1

Coercion

Answer 1

“The use of threats or actions, often involving military measures, to influence another actor to act in a way they would not otherwise choose
- Coercion is making someone do what you want them to do. brute force is using violence to get what you want.
- Two types: Deterrence and Compellence”

Question 2

Deterrence

Answer 2

“Coercion intended to influence an convince and adversary NOT to do something you DONT want them to do.
- Assurance: I WON’T punish you unless you do X “

Question 3

Compellence

Answer 3

“Coercion Intended to convince an adversary TO do something you WANT them to do.
- Assurance: I WILL punish you until you do Y”

Question 4

Brute Force

Answer 4

“The use of violence, military, and undiplomatic action concerned with an adversary’s strengths, instead of their interests.
- Coercion requires action on the part of the targer, Brute Force does not.

• Pure hurting: Not military engagements but punitive attacks on people.”

Question 5

Credible deterrence threat

Answer 5

“Requires:
- Resolve: I must be willing to respond against A
- Capability: I have the ability to do B
- Signaling: You must know that I can do B and I am willing to do B
- Credibility: You must believe that if you do A, I will do B
- Cost/Benifit: You must calculate that the risk of costs imposed by B is greater than the benifit of A

Nuclear weapons excel at these criteria.
“

Question 6

Deterrence by punishment versus deterrence by denial

Answer 6

”- Deterrence by punishment: Directing your retaliation agains your adversary’s military forces to deny them of their military strategy
- Deterrence by denial: Directing your retaliation to inflict UNACCEPTABLE levels of pain by targeting your adversary’s RESOLVE”

Question 7

Brinksmanship

Answer 7

Manipulating the shared risk of war

Question 8

Post-War coercion

Answer 8

ability for victor to leverage threat of further pain and damage to extract concessions

Question 9

Post-War coercion

Answer 9

ability for victor to leverage threat of further pain and damage to extract concessions

Question 10

Dilemma of Nuclear Deterrence:

Answer 10

Tension between making threats as frightening as possible, and need for degree of control/restraint to prevent unintended escalation.

Question 11

Projecting Intension:

Answer 11

Military needs to project not just its force as a form of diplomacy but also its clear intentions & ability to communicate those intensions persuasively and commitment to act on them.

Question 12

Perceived Irrationality & Cultivating image of impulsiveness

Answer 12

“Appearing somewhat irrational, impulsive, or unpredictable can enhance the credibility of threats

Form alliances with impulsive allies
Delegating authority to mil leaders
Public displays of impatience
“

Question 13

Binding oneself

Answer 13

burning metaphorical bridges to make threatened response appear inevitable and not merely matter of choice due to the need now for significant incurred costs to stop events.

Question 14

Relinquishing initiative for deterrence

Answer 14

effective deterrence often requires relinquishing initiative to adversary, leaving them w/ final decision to escalate or back down. Places them with the burden.

Question 15

Credibility of a commitment depends on two key factors:

Answer 15

“1) Clarity and definition: commitments should be well defined/unambigious. Leave no room for loopholes/graceful exits.
2) Inescapable positions: position where backing down would incur significant and unavoidable costs.
“

Question 16

Deterrence Domino Effect / Credibility Chain:

Answer 16

“Failure to honor one commitment can undermine the credibility of other commitments, even in seemingly unrelated areas.
Identification: credibility of a commitment is enhanced when adversaries perceive a strong connection between the protecting nation and the protected territory or ally.
This identification is shaped by expectations and perceptions.
Nations can influence this but don’t have complete control
“

Question 17

Homeland definition:

Answer 17

US isolated geography allows it to clearly define and defend its ‘homeland’, where as USSR’s borders and proximity to potential conflict zones make it more difficult to separate homeland from areas of potential conflict.

Question 18

Escaping commitments:

Answer 18

“nation trying to leave commitment to another state
If both a nation and its adversary downplay a commitment its easier to find a way out “

Question 19

Probes

Answer 19

“low level incidents to test firmness of a commitment without triggering a major response.
Aim to exploit the ambiguity of commitments and gain incremental advantages while avoiding a direct confrontation
“

Question 20

Tactics of Erosion:

Answer 20

” Can be used to weaken a commitment over time without provoking a decisive response.
Such as gradual escalation of violenations or exploiting loopholes in agreements
“

Question 21

Value of Unpredictability:

Answer 21

“Cultivating a reputation for occasional unpredictability and willingness to react forcefully to minor transgressions can make adversary more cautious about probing limits of commitments
“Unreasonableness” can prevent salami tactics and erosion
“

Question 22

Shifting burden of action:

Answer 22

“Blockade: relatively passive form of coercion that allows blockder to avoid direct mil confrontation while imposing increasing pressure.

Cumulative Pressure: steady cumulative pressure overtime can be more effective than sudden dramatic actions. Allows target to adjust and potentially comply without direct confrontation. “

Question 23

Compellence:

Answer 23

Ability to force and actor to act against their will, usually involving military threats or actions, although positive inducements can be used.

Question 24

Deterrence:

Answer 24

aims to prevent a target from changing its behavior

Question 25

Compellence:

Answer 25

“Aims to force a target to change its behavior.

Direct Compellance: Used for one’s own state
Extended compellence: used for allies
Wartime Compellence: use of force and economic mesaures

Different from coercive diplomacy: which involves threats, demonstrative military actions, and limited use of force short of war.

Coercive diplomacy has low success rate
Compellence involves public humiliation
Defenders of status quo tend to be more resolved
Giving into compellence weakens the target’s power and reputation
Powerful compellers can’t credibily commit to not demanding further concessions in future
The US focuses on minimizing its own casualities weakens credibility
US often makes excessive demands leading to resistance
“

Question 26

Compellent Strategies

Answer 26

“Military Denial: involves attacking a target’s military forces to cripple their ability to achieve their goals
Civilian punishment: targets a population to inflict pain and weaken resolve. “

Question 27

Six explinations for the difficulty of coercive diplomacy

Answer 27

”- Compellence inherently involves public humiliation for the target.
■ Defenders of the status quo tend to be more resolved.
■ Giving in to compellence weakens the target’s power and reputation.
■ Powerful compellers cannot credibly commit to not demanding further
concessions in the future.
■ The US’s focus on minimizing its own casualties weakens the credibility of
its threats.
■ The US often makes excessive demands, leading to resistance.
“

Question 28

four key challenges for future escalation for ukraine

Answer 28

“■ The risk of inadvertently crossing an escalation threshold due to overconfidence from past successes.
■ The costs of maintaining a slow pace in supplying weapons to Ukraine to assess risks.
■ The potential for escalation if Russia faces a significant defeat.
■ The possibility of Russia lowering the threshold for nuclear weapon use
due to the poor performance of its conventional forces.”

Question 29

What is the difference between deterrence and compellence? Which one is supposedly easer and why?

Answer 29

“Deterrence is threat intended to prevent somthing you dont want, compellence is threat intended to get something you want- Diffaculties with compellence: compellence is more challenging than deterrence because:
- Humiliation and social pressures influence an adversary not to back down
- Prospect Theory: An adversary is less likely to give up something it already has, making them less risk adverse, whereas with deterrence, the adversary is simply not doing the thing.
- Credibility Problem: The adversary may determine it is better to resist from the outset, demonstrating high perceived long term costs. This is more likely the greater the compeller has over the target adversary. Smaller nations are less likely to give into ““blackmail”” out of the fear that it will only invite subsequent compellence.”