Use Their Force: Interstate Security Alignments and Distribution of Military Capabilities
Andres Gannon
University of California, San Diego
Abstract:
Why do some capable states have imbalanced, specialized militaries while other maintain balanced, diversified force structures? Scholars and practitioners have long maintained that a full spectrum combined-arms military is the best defense against an unpredictable enemy. But that fails to explain why the US omitted minesweepers from its planned 600 ship navy in the 1980’s or why Western European states possessed no aerial refueling capacity until well after the end of the Cold War. Are specialized militaries that forgo the development of vital defense capabilities simply making mistakes? I argue that while there are strategic advantages of a diversified military portfolio, there are conditions under which states can reap the gains of economic efficiency that come with specialization without sacrificing the security benefits of a full spectrum force. States can specialize their defense capabilities when they engage in security cooperation with allied states. When a collection of states facing a similar threat environment are able to institutionalize their defense relationship in way that builds trust, minimizes the risk of defection, and ensures effective coordination, they can each individually specialize in different military capabilities that, when brought together, still comprise a full spectrum combined-arms military force. I substantiate these arguments with evidence from post-Cold War NATO expansion that finds more military specialization among former Soviet states that most closely aligned with NATO.
