The title of Lieber's book is somewhat misleading, for the book is really a challenge to the view, still current among some theorists of international relations, that stability between states often depends on whether technology favors the defense or the offense. The mobility made possible by railroads, the use of firepower to hold entrenched positions, and the potential of tanks to lead a quick advance have all marked a shift in the balance between offense and defense. Reviewing a century's worth of conflict, Lieber concludes, correctly, but to historians not surprisingly, that the causes of war lie in politics rather than technology. He also finds that it is not the case that perceptions of offensive supremacy can make a difference, whether or not there is any basis for them. The problem with the book is that it is trapped by the framework of the theory it so comprehensively refutes. This is less of a difficulty with the chapters on land warfare, for which the theory was really designed, but results in a rather convoluted chapter on "the nuclear revolution."
In This Review
In This Review
Most Read Articles
When Stalin Faced Hitler
Who Fooled Whom?
The Lost Art of American Diplomacy
Can the State Department Be Saved?
How Iran Sees Its Standoff With the United States
And What Trump Should Do to Solve the Problem He Created
The Right Way to Deal With Huawei
The United States Needs to Compete With Chinese Firms, Not Just Ban Them
Greece’s New Groove
Why Athens Is No Longer Europe’s Black Sheep