Does the Thucydides Trap Apply Today

The Thucydides Trap

Richards and Allison give to opposing perspectives on the potential for war between the US and China—but which is more useful in understanding the situation today? Richards offers some logical reasoning based on questionable assumptions to argue that conflict is unlikely. Allison, on the other hand, simply looks back at the past 500 years and notes that in the majority of cases the facts show that when two nations like the US and China engage in a power struggle the outcome tends to be war. The main reason Allison’s perspective is more useful than Richards’ perspective is that Allison bases his argument on facts, without making any assumptions or presenting any biases, while Richards uses logic but bases the logic of his reasoning on assumptions whose merit is debatable at best.

Richards says that aristocracies no longer rule nations—which I do not find convincing. Anyone looking at the US today can see that billionaires are pulling strings behind the scenes. Richards also states that civilians lead nations rather than military strategists. Again, this is not a convincing statement: the EU is led by technocrats and seems to do whatever NATO says to do. Plus, the Pentagon has a lot more sway in US foreign policy than civilian leaders—just look at America’s forever wars since 9/11 and how many times Congress has actually been used to declare war (hint: zero times). The open trading system cited by Richards is frail and has essentially blown up under US-China trade barriers and Russian sanctions—so that is a non-factor, regardless of what Richards imagines the situation to be. And nuclear deterrence is hardly a deterrent these days: every nation seems to have weapons of mass destruction and the kind of unhinged leadership most likely to use them. For these reasons, I would have to say Richards’ perspective on potential conflict between the US and China is not very useful.

On the other hand, Allison simply looks at the past and shows the trend: “in 12 of 16 past cases in which a rising power has confronted a ruling power, the result has been bloodshed” (Allison, p. 1). That really says all one needs to know on the matter: it is much more likely that the US and China will go to war than not, if history is any judge. Allison does not use out of touch reference points but rather notes how the overwhelming tendency of human societies over the past 500 has been to fight out their differences when one party is challenged by another. Whereas Richards’ argumentative perspective is based on reasonable ideas that are, however, backed by shaky premises, Allison’s historical perspective is based on the record of human behavior—and thus it is the more useful perspective.

Another key difference between the two perspectives is that Allison provides context for his perspective and provides a counter-argument, which helps to show an alternative way of considering the current conflict between the US and China. The alternative way or counter-argument that Allison makes is this: the US and China do not necessarily have to go to war—and, in fact, in four of the past 16 conflicts of the last 500 years between major powers war was avoided because the states put more time and energy into avoiding war through diplomacy than in saber rattling and escalating the conflict until war was unavoidable. In other words, Allison shows that just because war tends to be the most likely scenario based on the historical record, there are those instances in history where states showed how to avoid war. By providing two sides to the issue, Allison strengthens, deepens, and bolsters the perspective, making it far more compelling and fitting than that given by Richards.

It should be remembered that a perspective is a particular way of regarding something. In an argument, a perspective is a claim, or interpretation, about how things are or how they should be. A good perspective in an argument should be clear, supported by reasons and evidence, and logical. A clear perspective is one that can be readily understood by someone who is not intimately familiar with the details of the argument. It should be expressed in simple, straightforward language. A supported perspective is one for which there are good reasons and evidence. Reasons are logical grounds for the view; evidence consists of facts or examples that help to establish those grounds. It follows, therefore, that a logical perspective is one that follows logically from the reasons and evidence given. In other words, the conclusion must be consistent with the premises. Given these three criteria, it is evident that a good perspective in an argument must be clear, supported, and logical. Allison’s premise is clear and unquestionable: history shows what has happened over the last 500 years when a rising power squares off with a ruling power. In fact, of the only four times when conflict did not follow, they all took place in the 20th century—a century that saw two world wars at any rate. In other words, a rising power and a ruling power inevitably will face off and most likely via war—unless there is some diplomatic way out.

Richards takes the position that there is unlikely to be a war for various reasons, such as the way decisions are made in the developed world today, the globalized nature of trade, and so on. Each argument is based on an assumption or premise that is not as unshakeable as that of Allison’s. Richards’ assumptions have a biased tinge to them: they are the result of viewing the world through what could be described as rose-colored glasses or in optimistic terms. Richards does not give much ground to alternative views or counter-arguments because doing so would require him to do mental gymnastics that much more in order to explain why his assumptions are valid. They are, however, only questionably valid at best because one can see from one’s own experience that Richards is simply being naïve. Allison’s historical perspective is inarguable. Richards’ opinionated perspective is contrived.

The only counter-argument that one might make, of course, is that Allison is judging a technological modern world by Old World principles that simply do not apply because the precedent for annihilation set in Japan in 1945 by the US is just too great. If two superpowers like the US and China were to go toe to toe into battle, the world would likely end for all people everywhere: that seems to be the general argument by those who oppose Allison’s perspective. It is essentially what Richards argues. On the face of it, there is a kind of logic to it—for surely leaders would realize that to take two superpowers like the US and China into war would be to risk doom for the entire planet. Surely leaders would see that. But there is an assumption to this counter-argument that needs to be pointed out, and once pointed out one can see why the counter-argument does not work. The assumption is that world leaders are calm, rational, and well-intentioned. When is the last time populaces anywhere looked at their leaders and said to themselves, “Thank God our leaders are calm, rational, and well-intentioned!” I don’t want to speak for everyone, but I would bet that it has been a good long while since populaces did or said that.

The proper rebuttal to the counter-argument, therefore, is to show that logic arguments are built upon premises, and if those premises are solid (i.e., true) the argument that follows should lead to a satisfactory conclusion so long as logic is employed. However, if the premises are shaky (i.e., questionable and not necessarily true), logic will not do anything to make the argument convincing—for the perspective was disjointed from the start. Allison’s premise is simple and true: 12 out of 16 times over the past 500 years, confrontation between major powers has led to war. And the main reason those other four times did not end in war is because the world was essentially already at war (or else it was a tense Cold War that developed instead). One might argue against her conclusion, but the facts speak for themselves—and facts are useful when developing a perspective.