ed model for regulating international behavior--deterrence theory--may in fact be flawed. Although deterrence theory has not yet been replaced as the leading paradigm in conflict resolution, several alternative paradigms, such as reassurance theory by Janice Stein, are beginning to gain in prominence. It will be useful first to provide a fuller explanation of the deterrence model of conflict resolution, then apply it to Sherman's "March to the Sea," and finally explore the alternatives.
Although there are several different versions of deterrence theory, the model developed by Thomas Schelling, derived from game theory, is often considered one of the original and still leading theories. Schelling's theory of deterrence fundamentally rests on assumptions of rational choice by political leadership. Consequently, the decisionmaking processes of the leadership of two or more conflicting powers is central to deterrence. Deterrence seeks to prevent or limit conflict situations by convincing a potential aggressor nation that any such action cost the aggressor far more than any benefits to be derived.
Deterrence theory is fundamentally a model of human behavior that emphasizes psychological processes in international decisionmaking. It assumes first that human behavior--and the behavior of nations--is self-serving. Human beings want to maximize their wealth, power, or whatever else constitutes self-interest. In terms of international behavior, that usually means nations desire to maximize their power in the international arena and all that comes with that power. Given that there is no central global authority or community, this concept of human nature and the behavior of nations leads to two premises. First, the world is an anarchistic order in which violence is one of the most viable means for resolving conflicts. Second, the global arena is full of conflict. Each nation sees the others as potential adversaries in the quest to maximize...