Military escalation refers to actions that escalate a conflict’s intensity or geographic scope. Escalation factors vary from the introduction of a new weapon into battle to political or strategic decision making in the midst of hostilities. Historically, war has progressively intensified as technology developed. The emergence of nuclear weapons, however, represented a qualitative leap in the potential for destruction and violence that is likely unmatched in history.
The escalation risk of conflict is a critical consideration in U.S. national security policymaking, yet military planning doctrine and manuals lack clear guidance on how to account for escalation risks across the competition-conflict spectrum. Academic theories of escalation, on the other hand, provide a rich set of frameworks that can help staff officers and military planners think about when, why, and how escalation may occur.
National security officials frequently express concerns about military escalation and urge counterparts to exercise restraint. Yet this approach can have dangerous, unintended consequences. By focusing on the importance of avoiding operational risk and showing restraint, policymakers place our nation at greater strategic risk. Instead, the United States should view escalation as a tool—useful at times and dangerous at others—in a larger arsenal of tools for addressing threats.
Identifying which activities are most likely to trigger a PRC response and how to mitigate such responses will require careful consideration of the profile and messaging of those activities as well as their physical characteristics. Those that involve Taiwan, for example, carry the highest escalation risk and should be carefully considered by the United States to ensure that they do not signal encouragement of Taiwanese independence. Likewise, higher-risk activities should be aggregated with lower-risk ones to reduce the likelihood of triggering a disproportionately aggressive PRC response.
About the Author
