Network Theory Predicts Wars (or Lack Thereof?)

The study of modern history is currently undergoing a revolution. That is largely because historians are beginning to apply the ideas in network theory to the complex interactions that have forged our past.

There was a time when historians focused largely on events as the be all and end all of history. But in recent years, there has been a growing understanding that a complex network of links, alliances, trade agreements and so on play a hugely important role in creating an environment in which conflict (or peace) can spread.

An interesting open question in this regard is whether certain kinds of networks exist that are stable against the outbreak of war. Today, we get an answer thanks to the work of Matthew Jackson and Stephen Nei at Stanford University in California. These guys combine network theory and game theory to study the stability of different kinds of networks based on real-world data.

In particular, Jackson and Nai study the theoretical properties of networks consisting of countries that have military links and compared them to the properties of networks in which countries have both military and trade links.

Finally, they apply real data to their model. They combine international trade data with the well-known “Correlates of War” database to see how closely their predictions match those of real networks.

Jackson and Nei begin by considering a simple network of a handful of countries that can form military coalitions of various strengths. At the same time, each alliance must serve a purpose by helping to protect the countries involved so that the deletion of any alliance would make a country vulnerable. In this network, a country is vulnerable to attack if its coalition is weaker than its opponents’ coalition and the cost of a war is less than the benefit.

An interesting question is whether such a network can ever be stable against war. In other words, can the network exist in a way that no country is vulnerable to a successful attack by others and that no country can change alliances in a way that makes such an attack viable.

link.

The time frame's damping of wars had nothing to do with the spread of nuclear weapons.  Nope.  Not at all.