Military escalation refers to the use of force to achieve desired objectives and avoid a negative consequence. National security professionals must continually evaluate their adversary’s stakes, limits and objectives to determine how much of their nation’s power can be deployed without causing the desired outcome.
Escalation can make a conflict worse, if it is undertaken without regard for potential adversary reactions or without a full understanding of the costs. Nonetheless, it can also end a conflict sooner by convincing an adversary that they have miscalculated and undervalued one’s stake and commitment, thereby signaling willingness to assume risk. It can also convey intent by increasing the scale of targets and destructive power, expanding the geographic scope of conflict through the launching of new fronts, or altering the nature of a conflict by introducing new forms of violence and destruction.
While nuclear weapons occupy the highest rungs of the escalation ladder, conflicts may progress well below that threshold and over a long period of time. Therefore, it is important to address the entire escalation spectrum and not just those actions that will inevitably take place at the top tier of the ladder.
During wargames and tabletop exercises, many military officers and civilian defense policy makers call for restraint to minimize escalation risks. These calls are not only incorrect, but they are potentially dangerous. By overemphasizing the importance of restraint, they may inadvertently put the United States at greater strategic risk. Instead, it is far more productive to view escalation as a useful tool that can be employed when and how necessary.
About the Author
