| 1. |
- Sörenson, Karl, 1978-
(author)
-
Deterrence Games for the 21st Century : Representation, Theory and Evidence
- 2022
-
Doctoral thesis (other academic/artistic)abstract
- Deterrence is the backbone of military strategy. Dissuading an opponent from taking a specific action by threat of violence is the definition of deterrence. From the outset of the Cold War there has been a strong link between the study of deterrence and game theoretic analysis. There are compelling epistemic reasons for studying deterrence as a game. By doing so, the strategic interaction between actors is placed at the centre of the analysis, mapping the possible outcomes and revealing the strategies available to the actors. Discussions about various models’ appropriateness and model comparison therefore play a central role in deterrence research; from underlying assumptions and deterrence representation to theory and evidence. This dissertation treats aspects of all of these topics. Article I, “Prospects of Deterrence – Deterrence Theory – Representation and Evidence”, analyses the relationship between model and theory and what happens to a deterrence theory when the rationality assumption is switched to a prospect theoretical utility function. Article II, “A Misfit Model – Bounded Rationality and Deterrence Representation”, defends and remodels Schelling’s idea of irrational threats for effective deterrence. Article III, “Comparable Deterrence – Target, Criteria and Purpose”, treats the issue of how one can compare game theoretic models with one another and proposes a meta-model for how this can be done. Article IV, “Deterring the Dauntless – Appraising the Effects of Naval Deterrence against the Somali Piracy”, estimates whether and to what extent Somali piracy was deterred by the naval intervention.
|
|
| 2. |
- Egnell, Robert, Professor, 1975-, et al.
(author)
-
Afghanistan : Krig utan slut?
- 2017. - 2
-
In: Om Krig och Fred. - Lund : Studentlitteratur AB. - 9789144115740 ; , s. 153-172
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)
|
|
| 3. |
- Noreen, Erik, 1951-, et al.
(author)
-
Why small states join big wars : The case of Sweden in Afghanistan 2002–2014
- 2017
-
In: International Relations. - : SAGE Publications. - 0047-1178 .- 1741-2862. ; 31:2, s. 145-168
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The security behavior of small states has traditionally been explained by different takes of realism, liberalism, or constructivism – focusing on the behavior that aims toward safeguarding sovereignty or engaging in peace policies. The issue of why states with limited military capacities and little or no military alignments or engagements decide to participate in an international mission has received limited attention by previous research. In contrast, this article argues that a three-layered discursive model can make the choices of small states more precisely explained and thereby contribute to an increased understanding of small states’ security behavior beyond threat balancing and interdependence. Analyzing a deviant case of a non-aligned small state, this article explains why Sweden became increasingly involved in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) mission in Afghanistan. By focusing on the domestic political discourses regarding the Swedish involvement in this mission, it is suggested that a narrative shapes public perception of a particular policy and establishes interpretative dominance of how a particular event should be understood. This dominant domestic discourse makes a certain international behavior possible and even impossible to alter once established. In the Swedish case, it is demonstrated that this discourse assumed a ‘catch-all’ ambition, satisfying both domestic and international demands. In general terms, it should thus be emphasized that certain discourses and narratives are required in order to make it possible for a country to participate in a mission such as ISAF and prolong the mission for several years.
|
|
| 4. |
- Ångström, Jan, Professor, 1970-, et al.
(author)
-
"Civil and military” as a constitutive categorization of the study of war and politics
- 2021
-
In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. - : Oxford University Press.
-
Book chapter (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The existence of a clear-cut division between “civil and military” is in many ways a foundation for international law and diplomacy. It is also a given starting point in many studies on current issues relating to war and peace, as well as in historical interpretations of past conflicts. Yet the civil–military dichotomy is not always a useful way of approaching complex matters, and by adopting such a starting point, some issues risk being overlooked. There are numerous historical examples, from the American Civil War, to wars of national liberation ending colonialization, to insurrections shaking political status quo such as the Marxist–Leninist revolutions; all illustrate that neither the agents of war nor the victims fit neatly into one of two clear categories. In a contemporary setting, non-traditional forms of warfare that make use of cyber space or autonomous systems further serves not only to undermine ideas of internal–external security but also to blur the distinction between civil and military. In the everyday making and implementation of policy, these concepts are indeed fluid and the borders between them highly variable, continuously contested, and renegotiated. As concepts, they can be seen as co-constitutive in the everyday usage. Civil and military are therefore best understood as norms, whose contents and interrelationship are contextually determined. At the same time, civil and military are organizational principles of the state, and as such the distinction is, arguably, too important, too deep-seated within the modern state- system, and too engrained in how legal and political order are understood to disappear in the near future.
|
|
| 5. |
- Ångström, Jan, Professor, 1970-
(author)
-
Contribution Warfare : Sweden's Lessons of the War in Afghanistan
- 2020
-
In: Parameters. - 0031-1723 .- 2158-2106. ; 50:4, s. 61-72
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Contribution warfare removed the influence of Sweden's politics from the Afghanistan War (2001-14) and created learning conditions favoring case-specific, tactical lessons over the strategic ones. This article applies the concept of "contribution warfare" to analyze the lessons from Sweden's involvement in the war. The inconsistent application of this knowledge resulted largely from the political and operational realities of a small nation contributing to an alliance dominated by a single actor.
|
|
| 6. |
- Ångström, Jan, Professor, 1970-
(author)
-
Escalation, Emulation, and the Failure of Hybrid Warfare in Afghanistan
- 2017
-
In: Studies in Conflict and Terrorism. - : Taylor & Francis. - 1057-610X .- 1521-0731. ; 40:10, s. 838-856
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- In this article, I argue that hybridization is a contingent result of the dynamics of some conflicts but not others. In particular, faced with opponents with great power, weaker powers seek a situation of asymmetry to gain victory. Drawing on within-case analysis of the conduct of war during the past thirty years in Afghanistan, I demonstrate that what we now consider to be "hybrid" represents an important continuity and strategic option in Afghan warfare. Still, the analysis also demonstrates that choosing "hybrid" has not been a strategy that has worked. Hezb-i-Islami's rather limited attempt for conventionalization of the war against the forces of Dostum and Massoud in 1992 failed and the Taliban's more far-reaching attempt for conventionalization has so far also failed to reap strategic success. This suggests that the threat of hybrid war is inflated.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Ångström, Jan, Professor, 1970-
(author)
-
Seger och nederlag i Ukrainakriget
- 2023
-
In: Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift. - 0039-0747. ; 125:3, s. 669-692
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Who will win the war in Ukraine? For centuries the outcome of war has been described in terms of victory and defeat. Since the Russian invasion began in February 2022, scores of articles in the daily press have touched on the issue of the Ukraine war. At the same time, an increasing number of analysts and scholars argue that the concepts victory/defeat are not the most adequate to describe the outcomes of several modern wars. It is empirically rare with unequivocal outcomes where one side unconditionally surrenders and war almost never follows a clear template. Superpowers are seemingly defeated by poor developing countries and planned blitzkrieg operations get stuck in the mud and lack of maintenance. At the same time, it is easy to see that there is a significant interest for the parties involved in a war to continue using the concepts victory/defeat because one of the few things that can legitimize the enormous costs of that war is precisely victory. In this text, the outcome of the Ukraine war – as it looks like in early 2023 – is analyzed according to Johnson and Tierney’s model of the so-called score-keeping and match-fixing.
|
|
| 9. |
- Ångström, Jan, Professor, 1970-, et al.
(author)
-
The poverty of power in military power : how collective power could benefit strategic studies
- 2019
-
In: Defense and Security Analysis. - : Routledge. - 1475-1798 .- 1475-1801. ; 35:2, s. 170-189
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Strategic studies deals intimately with the topic of power. Most scholars in the discipline work with a concept of power as an adversarial zero-sum competition. This is natural and necessary. However, other conceptions of power developed within political science and sociology could enrich strategic studies. Approaching two typical, traditional tasks of strategy – alliance building and war-fighting – this article demonstrates the heuristic mileage of theories of collective power. In particular, we can shed new light on the post-Cold War transformation of NATO as well as state-building as a strategy in counter-insurgencies with new ideas of power. Broadening the palette of theories of power is thus valuable if strategic studies is to prosper as an independent field of study.
|
|
| 10. |
- Ångström, Jan, Professor, 1970-
(author)
-
The US perspective on future war : why the US relies upon Ares rather than Athena
- 2018
-
In: Defence Studies. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1470-2436 .- 1743-9698. ; 18:3, s. 318-338
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- This article addresses why the US in its military operations tends to focus on only one dimension in war – the military narrowly understood. More precisely, in the US case, its armed forces tend to be preoccupied with platforms and understand military capabilities as those that deliver death and destruction. I explain this one-sided understanding of the military dimension in war with how the US armed forces think about future war. How the US understands future war is, in turn, a reflection of how it organizes its long-term defense planning procedures. In particular, by approaching the concept of future as by and large structurally determined, a focus on platforms becomes natural. Investments in weapons systems, too, are more easily motivated to Congress since it is easier to attach a price to developing, for example, a new submarine than it is to attach a price to the cost of developing a military organization that is adaptive, learning and anticipating. The understanding of the future as something that happens whether you like it or not is particularly odd in the US context where of course a central tenet of the American dream is that the individual creates her own future.
|
|
