Suchergebnisse

Chapter 1. Lewis Fry Richardson – A Pioneer not Forgotten -- Chapter 2. Lewis Fry Richardson: A Personal Narrative -- Chapter 3. The Influence of the Richardson Arms Race Model -- Chapter 4. What Richardson Got Right (and Wrong) about Arms Races and War -- Chapter 5. Richardson and the Study of Dynamic Conflict Processes -- chapter 6. Back to the Future: Richardson's Multilateral Arms Race Model -- Chapter 7. From Hand-counting to GIS: Richardson in the Information Age -- Chapter 8. Weather, War, and Chaos: Richardson's Encounter with Molecules and Nations -- Chapter 9. When Lanchester met Richardson: The Interaction of Warfare with Psychology -- Chapter 10. On the Frequency and Severity of Interstate Wars -- Chapter 11. The Decline of War since 1950: New Evidence -- Appendix.

This is an open access book. Lewis F Richardson (1981-1953), a physicist by training, was a pioneer in meteorology and peace research and remains a towering presence in both fields. This edited volume reviews his work and assesses its influence in the social sciences, notably his work on arms races and their consequences, mathematical models, the size distribution of wars, and geographical features of conflict. It contains brief bibliographies of his main publications and of articles and books written about Richardson and his work and discusses his continuing influence in peace research and international relations as well as his attitude to the ethical responsibilities of a scientist. It will be of interest to a wide range of scholars. This book includes 11 chapters written by Nils Petter Gleditsch, Dina A Zinnes, Ron Smith, Paul F Diehl, Kelly Kadera, Mark Crescenzi, Michael D Ward, Kristian Skrede Gleditsch, Nils B Weidmann, Jürgen Scheffran, Niall MacKay, Aaron Clauset, Michael Spagat and Stijn van Weezel. Lewis F Richardson occupied an important position in two academic fields as different as meteorology and peace research, with academic prizes awarded in both disciplines. In peace research, he pioneered the use of mathematical models and the meticulous compilation of databases for empirical research. As a quaker and pacifist, he refused to work in preparations for war, paid a heavy prize in terms of his career, and (at least in the social sciences) was fully recognized as a pioneering scholar only posthumously with the publication of two major books. Lewis Fry Richardson is one of the 20th century's greatest but least appreciated thinkers—a creative physicist, psychologist, meteorologist, applied mathematician, historian, pacifist, statistician, and witty stylist. If you've heard of weather prediction, chaos, fractals, cliometrics, peace science, big data, thick tails, or black swans, then you have benefited from Richardson's prescience in bringing unruly phenomena into the ambit of scientific understanding. Richardson's ideas continue to be relevant today, and this collection is a superb retrospective on this brilliant and lovable man. Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor, Harvard University, and the author of The Better Angels of Our Nature and Enlightenment Now

Intro -- Foreword -- Contents -- 1 R.J. Rummel-A Multi-faceted Scholar -- 1.1 A Rummel Timeline -- 1.2 The Lone Ranger -- 1.3 The Critics -- 1.4 The Novelist and the Artist -- 1.5 Personal Recollections -- 1.6 A Final Assessment -- References -- 2 Dad -- 3 R.J. Rummel, Citizen Scholar: An Interview on the Occasion of His Retirement -- 3.1 Introduction -- 3.2 A Premature Retirement from Teaching -- 3.3 A Scientist's Explicit Reference to Values -- 3.4 The Interview, Part I: An Aversion -- 3.5 The Interview, Part II: An Affinity -- 3.6 The Interview, Part III: Science as a Profession -- 3.7 The Interview, Part IV: Worse than War -- 3.8 The Interview, Part V: A Liberal Education -- 3.9 The Interview, Part VI: Theory Informed, Data-driven Research -- 3.10 The Interview, Part VII: Lessons Learned -- Reference -- 4 Rummel as a Great Teacher -- 4.1 The Great Teacher -- 4.2 Rummel's Korean Students -- 4.3 My Own Work with Rummel -- 4.4 Freedom and Dignity -- 4.5 Rudy in Space -- Rummel's Work Published in Korea -- 5 Contextualizing Rummel's Field Theory -- 5.1 A Genealogical Preface -- 5.2 Field Theory Genealogy: Take-off Traces -- 5.3 Systems Thinking -- 5.4 Field Theories -- 5.5 Parallel Constructions -- 5.6 Implications and Possible Applications -- References -- 6 R.J. Rummel, Nuclear Superiority, and the Limits of Détente -- 6.1 Introduction -- 6.2 Rummel's Arguments -- 6.3 The Legacy of Peace Endangered -- References -- 7 Rummel's Unfinished Legacy: Reconciling Peace Research and Realpolitik -- 7.1 The Legacy -- 7.2 Russian Expansion in the Ukraine: A Realist View -- 7.3 Realism and the Capitalist Peace -- 7.4 Beyond Rummel: Dovish Realism -- 7.5 Rummel's Strategic Environment and Ours -- References -- 8 Understanding Conflict and War: An Overlooked Classic? -- 8.1 Introduction -- 8.2 UCW: Structure and Main Themes.

Nils Petter Gleditsch: Introduction: R J Rummel: A multi-faceted scholar -- Dawn Akemi: Dad -- Doug Bond: R J Rummel, citizen scholar: An interview on the occasion of his retirement -- Sang-Woo Rhee: Rummel as a great teacher -- Richard Chadwick: Contextualizing Rummel's field theory -- Matthew Kroenig & Bardia Rahmani: R J Rummel, Nuclear superiority, and the limits of détente -- Erich Weede: Rummel's unfinished legacy: Reconciling peace research and realpolitik -- James Lee Ray: Understanding Conflict and War An overlooked classic? -- Frank Whelon Wayman: Rummel and Singer, DON and COW Rummel and Singer, DON and COW: To what extent should we focus on the regime, or the inter-state system? -- H-C Peterson: Regime type matters

The papers collected in this volume demonstrate how different kinds of analytical approach can be used to anticipate the economic repercussions of systematic reduction of military spending. This volume will be of interest to economists; scholars in peace studies, international relations and such like; and officials of national governments and international bodies dealing with disarmament issues and with economic restructuring

Warning about dire effects of climate change on armed conflict is a recent variation of a scenario that has been promoted by environmental pessimists for over two centuries. The essence is that human activities lead to resource scarcities that in turn will generate famine, pestilence, and war. This essay reviews three stages of the argument: first, the original Malthusian thesis that focused on food production. Second, the broader neoMalthusian concern from the 1970s about limits to growth and developing scarcities in a range of necessities. And recently, the specter of climate change. In each phase, the Malthusians have met firm opposition from environmental optimists, who argue that emerging scarcities can be countered by human ingenuity, technological progress, and national and international economic and political institutions and that environmental change is not in itself a major driver of human violence. In the third phase, the Malthusian case appears to be stronger because human activities have reached a level where they have a truly global impact. Environmental optimists still insist that these problems can be overcome by human ingenuity and that the long-term trend towards less violence in human affairs is unlikely to be reversed by climate change. The stakes seem higher, but the structure of the debate remains largely the same.

AbstractThe decline in organized violence in the period after World War II provides the promise of a more peaceful future. How can we move further in this direction? Democratic peace—the absence of armed violence between democracies and the domestic peace of mature democracies—may provide part of the answer. This phenomenon is a well-established empirical regularity, but its mechanisms and its limits remain a subject of continuing research. The key role of democracy in reducing violence has been challenged by alternative explanations, such as the liberal peace, the capitalist peace, the developed peace, the organized peace, the quality of government peace, the feminist peace, and the civil society peace—but also by realism. In this essay, part of the roundtable "World Peace (And How We Can Achieve It)," I argue that it is a social-democratic peace that provides the best basis for a lasting world peace. This formula includes democracy but incorporates additional elements, such as a market economy, an active and competent state, close international cooperation, and the reduction of discrimination and group-based inequality. Combining these elements would provide a solid basis for eliminating violence between, as well as within, states. The main limitation of such a program is its demanding nature. Few states and interstate relations as yet fulfill all these conditions, but the long-term trends are moving in the right direction.

Until recently, most writings on the relationship between climate change and security were highly speculative. The IPCC assessment reports to date offer little if any guidance on this issue and occasionally pay excessive attention to questionable sources. The articles published in this special issue form the largest collection of peer-reviewed writings on the topic to date. The number of such studies remains small compared to those that make up the natural science base of the climate issue, and there is some confusion whether it is the effect of 'climate' or 'weather' that is being tested. The results of the studies vary, and firm conclusions cannot always be drawn. Nevertheless, research in this area has made considerable progress. More attention is being paid to the specific causal mechanisms linking climate change to conflict, such as changes in rainfall and temperature, natural disasters, and economic growth. Systematic climate data are used in most of the articles and climate projections in some. Several studies are going beyond state-based conflict to look at possible implications for other kinds of violence, such as intercommunal conflict. Overall, the research reported here offers only limited support for viewing climate change as an important influence on armed conflict. However, framing the climate issue as a security problem could possibly influence the perceptions of the actors and contribute to a self-fulfilling prophecy.