ABSTRACT
As noted in the statements by Bloomfield and Leiss and by Creveld, assertions concerning the rational calculation of military balances are prevalent in international affairs. In this regard, assertions are that it is not the absolute size of a state’s military establishment that produces an inclination to conflict, but rather its size in relation to potential enemies. Further, many scholars have extrapolated, indicating that the spread of conventional weaponry has important effects on either the calculation of military balances or the correlation of forces in actuality.3 Indeed, the statement quoted in the previous chapter from the U.S. government’s notification of the sale of Harpoon antiship missiles to Egypt forthrightly proclaimed to Congress that the sales would not alter regional military balances and therefore cause instability in the Middle East. What is absent in this statement and elsewhere, however, is an appreciation of the precise mechanism of how conventional weapons affect the military balance between rival states or an explanation of how such calculations are made.
