Military escalation is the gradual progression in intensity of conflict from the simplest, most violent forms to more-sophisticated strategies and weapons. While there have been periods of technical regression, throughout much of history, firepower and destructiveness has increased steadily as weapon technology improved.
The escalating force that has most often driven military conflicts is manpower escalation. As opponents sought more men, their wars became more intense and their tactics more deadly. Even after the introduction of conscription, manpower escalation continued to play a key role in warfare. As nations developed more sophisticated economies and better organized societies, it became easier to deploy armies over long distances and engage in protracted campaigns.
As conflict escalates, it can also become more strategic as both sides attempt to outflank rivals on the escalation ladder through a series of tactical and operational steps. This process can be influenced by changing public rhetoric, evolving capabilities, and patterns of behavior that develop over time. The geographic environment can also shape the construction and destruction of escalation ladders. For example, the Sino-Indian competition in the Himalayas has created unique escalation ladders shaped by the difficulties of logistic preparations in difficult terrain and at high altitudes that can influence projectile trajectories, visibility, and stamina.
There is an almost reflexive default position among national security professionals to avoid escalation. This is likely a result of the Defense Department’s Joint Professional Military Education system in which upwardly mobile officers learn to devalue risks and favor risk-averse policies. However, such a mindset is not only unrealistic, but dangerously shortsighted in a world where revisionist adversaries have demonstrated their ability to use asymmetric means to achieve their objectives.