Search results

Writing in 1941, Edward Mead Earle argued that "the interrelation of commercial, financial, and industrial strength on the one hand, and political and military strength on the other . is one of the most critical and absorbing problems of statesmanship."1 This is the enduring problem that informs the books under review. As did Earle and other writers, the authors have attempted to refine the problem and point toward its policy resolution.

Einschätzung/Abschätzung + Aus US-amerikanischer Sicht

Military power is central to diplomacy and much of international relations, yet common quantitative measures have limited surface validity. This limitation stems from focusing on latent power and only indirectly incorporating major weapon systems. I contend that weapons are central to military power and present a new measure of country military power based primarily on armaments. The measure includes major naval, air and land weapons as well as nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capability. I examine the surface, content and context validity of the measure and compare it to existing measures. I show that this measure of material military power (MMP) has more surface and context validity than alternative measures. I find that MMP better predicts war outcomes, better accounts for militarized threats, and performs well as a control variable for country power.

Military power is central to diplomacy and much of international relations, yet common quantitative measures have limited surface validity. This limitation stems from focusing on latent power and only indirectly incorporating major weapon systems. I contend that weapons are central to military power and present a new measure of country military power based primarily on armaments. The measure includes major naval, air and land weapons as well as nuclear weapons and ballistic missile capability. I examine the surface, content and context validity of the measure and compare it to existing measures. I show that this measure of material military power (MMP) has more surface and context validity than alternative measures. I find that MMP better predicts war outcomes, better accounts for militarized threats, and performs well as a control variable for country power.

The article of record as published may be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.55540/ 0031-1723.2952 ; For all the attention paid to partnering, too little goes into what "partnering" might mean from ostensible partners' points of view. In the 21st century, sensitivities and sensibilities matter. So do economic realities. The US military should make better strategic use of military advisors to help foreign security services professional- ize—something the United States can only do if foreign militaries are willing to engage in civic action themselves.