The Offense-Defense Balance and The Costs of Anarchy: When Welfare Improves Under Offensive Advantage

28 May 2021, Version 1
This content is an early or alternative research output and has not been peer-reviewed at the time of posting.


A large literature has argued that offensive advantage makes states worse off because it can induce a security dilemma, preemption, costly conflict, and arms races. We argue instead that state welfare is u-shaped under increasing offensive advantage. We assess the offense-defense balance by considering a model where two states choose arms levels and decide whether to attack. High defensive advantage is first-best because attacking is difficult and the arms burdens required to deter attacks and maintain peace are low. High offensive advantage is comparatively worse because war is likely, but war tends to be smaller in scale, quicker, and less costly. Intermediate offensive advantage is worst because high arms burdens are required to deter attacks while wars, when they occur, are larger, longer, and more destructive. We discuss historical examples of this phenomenon including from the Warring States periods in China and Japan, the Federalist papers, and the World Wars.


Offense-Defense Balance
International Security
International Relations
Security Dilemma
Cost of Anarchy
Cost of War
Formal Theory
Military History
Political Economy


Comments are not moderated before they are posted, but they can be removed by the site moderators if they are found to be in contravention of our Commenting Policy [opens in a new tab] - please read this policy before you post. Comments should be used for scholarly discussion of the content in question. You can find more information about how to use the commenting feature here [opens in a new tab] .
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy [opens in a new tab] and Terms of Service [opens in a new tab] apply.