{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.009025270758122744, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.523529411764706, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Primed to Fight

Ample empirical evidence suggests that there exist structural differences between groups of states in terms of conflict involvement rates. A small group of states accounts for most conflicts and wars in international politics. Another group of states managed to avoid conflict involvement for most of their history. These results are not surprising; they match the expectations of both experts and laypersons regarding the future of conflict in international politics. This study offers two tentative explanations for these structural patterns of conflict proneness and pacifism. Both explanations view these differential rates of conflict involvement as a result of a national selection process. The can syndrome suggests that certain states fight repeatedly because they view violent conflict as an efficient and effective instrument of policy. The must syndrome suggests that some states feel that conflict is their only way of dealing with a threatening international environment. I provide evidence supporting both explanations and discuss their implications for international politics.