Escalation dynamics and the severity of wars

Abstract

Although very large wars remain an enduring threat in global politics, we lack a clear understanding of how some wars become large and costly, while most do not. There are three possibilities: large conflicts start with and maintain intense fighting, they persist over a long duration, or they escalate in intensity over time. Using detailed within-conflict data on civil and interstate wars 1946--2008, we show that escalation dynamics -- variations in fighting intensity within an armed conflict -- play a fundamental role in producing large conflicts and are a generic feature of both civil and interstate wars. However, civil wars tend to deescalate when they become very large, limiting their overall severity, while interstate wars exhibit a persistent risk of continual escalation. A non-parametric model demonstrates that this distinction in escalation dynamics can explain the differences in the historical sizes of civil vs. interstate wars, and explain Richardson's Law governing the frequency and severity of interstate conflicts over the past 200 years. Escalation dynamics also drive enormous uncertainty in forecasting the eventual sizes of both hypothetical and ongoing civil wars, indicating a need to better understand the causes of escalation and deescalation within conflicts. The close relationship between the size, and hence the cost, of an armed conflict and its potential for escalation has broad implications for theories of conflict onset or termination and for risk assessment in international relations.