What do you think?
Rate this book
The Scientific Study of Peace and War: A Text Reader
The contributors of this book suggest methodologies for a systematic analysis of historical examples, using controlled observation, the collection of evidence, and careful inferences.
512 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1900
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 5, 2015
I came to this book by a rather circuitous route - a casual reader of one book, then an academic thesis that countered it and yet referenced some of the material in this one. So I decided to read at least those bits - Steven Rosen's contribution in particular but also others. So I didn't have to read this as an assignment for a class or to write my own academic review. Just a curious reader with a bit of knowledge on the side and the ability to apply at least a bit of reason.
The book is not bad but I found some things a bit too... intellectualized? Case in point Rosen's Power Ratio. A made up equation that uses made up numbers to generate - what? Nothing actually. But it looks good to make something that looks like an equation and stick in your text. "It must be math! Can't argue with that!" Well, I would. We'll come back to the importance of this 'analysis' in a moment.
He also says "Most wars occur because the two parties have very different expectations of the likely outcome." Hmmm... I really have an issue with that. I don't think Poland had a different view than Germany in WWII. And I don't think most countries that are invaded, especially without warning, really think it over much. Even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor isn't so clear. The Japanese didn't necessarily think they could win a war against the US if total surrender is the criteria but they thought they could do a little empire building in the Pacific and get away with it. There's one side's view. The US? "How dare they attack us! Kill!" OK so maybe not exactly but I am not going to let the opinion of Joe Average on the street count for much so popular opinion of "We can beats the Japs" doesn't matter. There was an attack and what other choice was there? Let the attacker get away with it? No, you fight back. Even the Poles 'tried' to fight the Germans... So I think the use of the word 'most' by the author is at the very least overly simplified.
I picked on Rosen a bunch in a short space (the complete text offers others that could serve as well), but what I want to point out is that the 'editor' of this book, who collected the various writings, put them together, and then gave his own analysis of each... How to say this? Didn't do a very good job. He supports Rosen's work (as one example) and tries to make the point that the analysis is good (should I also point out the editor makes claims for casualty numbers from Vietnam without reference or substantiation?) and it just isn't. Not unless you are trying to make a point (pre-determined) and don't want to let 'real math' rules get in your way. Maybe, just maybe, people should leave number crunching and figuring out what real 'analysis' really looks like. Because the impression I walked away with was that this is yet another case of a non-analytical mind letting their disposition to particular views or dogma preventing them from applying critical thought. And this is supposed to teach students how to think critically? I only hope there are instructors who use this book and have the temerity to critically dissect both the contributors' and the editors' analysis in open discussion. THAT would be a real value in the classroom.
Only read this if forced to.
The book is not bad but I found some things a bit too... intellectualized? Case in point Rosen's Power Ratio. A made up equation that uses made up numbers to generate - what? Nothing actually. But it looks good to make something that looks like an equation and stick in your text. "It must be math! Can't argue with that!" Well, I would. We'll come back to the importance of this 'analysis' in a moment.
He also says "Most wars occur because the two parties have very different expectations of the likely outcome." Hmmm... I really have an issue with that. I don't think Poland had a different view than Germany in WWII. And I don't think most countries that are invaded, especially without warning, really think it over much. Even the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor isn't so clear. The Japanese didn't necessarily think they could win a war against the US if total surrender is the criteria but they thought they could do a little empire building in the Pacific and get away with it. There's one side's view. The US? "How dare they attack us! Kill!" OK so maybe not exactly but I am not going to let the opinion of Joe Average on the street count for much so popular opinion of "We can beats the Japs" doesn't matter. There was an attack and what other choice was there? Let the attacker get away with it? No, you fight back. Even the Poles 'tried' to fight the Germans... So I think the use of the word 'most' by the author is at the very least overly simplified.
I picked on Rosen a bunch in a short space (the complete text offers others that could serve as well), but what I want to point out is that the 'editor' of this book, who collected the various writings, put them together, and then gave his own analysis of each... How to say this? Didn't do a very good job. He supports Rosen's work (as one example) and tries to make the point that the analysis is good (should I also point out the editor makes claims for casualty numbers from Vietnam without reference or substantiation?) and it just isn't. Not unless you are trying to make a point (pre-determined) and don't want to let 'real math' rules get in your way. Maybe, just maybe, people should leave number crunching and figuring out what real 'analysis' really looks like. Because the impression I walked away with was that this is yet another case of a non-analytical mind letting their disposition to particular views or dogma preventing them from applying critical thought. And this is supposed to teach students how to think critically? I only hope there are instructors who use this book and have the temerity to critically dissect both the contributors' and the editors' analysis in open discussion. THAT would be a real value in the classroom.
Only read this if forced to.
June 25, 2015
Good for finding quantitative support to many presumptions. Reading was boring though.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews