Military Escalation
Until recently, the emergence of nuclear weapons and their associated delivery vehicles represented the greatest increase in the potential for destruction and violence ever seen. Yet the escalation ladder extends well beyond these weapons, and military planners and staff officers must consider a full range of options to ensure that a conflict can be brought to a desirable end with minimal risk. The literature on escalation provides frameworks that can help them do so.
Escalation, by its very nature, involves risk. A nation defending its interests and the status quo must decide how far to go, and that often requires threatening or engaging in a level of violence that will provoke an adversary into a disproportionate response. This escalation, however, must be calibrated correctly to prevent the conflict from becoming protracted and more costly for all parties.
At a lower level, escalation also plays an important role in the psychology of war. Combatants may expend seemingly unjustified resources because they are reluctant to admit that their course of action is not working and do not see any way out of their predicament. This process is known as the “sacrifice trap,” and it can entrap even the most skilled and experienced commanders.
The Biden administration faced the challenge of balancing the risks and costs of escalation in Ukraine, where Russia had invaded. Its efforts were focused on deterring Russia by warning it of grave consequences if it attacked NATO or its forces in Europe, and in making the U.S. response to any Russian use of tactical nuclear weapons conventional and short in duration. This approach was informed by Thomas Schelling’s advice to policy makers that it is more credible to signal that you will not consciously escalate than it is to imply that you are prepared to do so.