This study addresses what it means, theoretically and diplomatically, to argue that states anticipate war. The ‘steps-to-war’ thesis contends that territorial disputes are high salience issues, but war is relatively unlikely unless state policies, such as arms buildups, directly increase the probability of war. This framework contrasts with the argument that these policies simply reflect underlying conflict, seen as the primary cause of both policies and war. The historical analysis here indicates that states do ‘anticipate’ war, but, at least in the case of wars related to ongoing territorial conflicts, it is theoretically trivial: states anticipate war, engaging in final preparations after their relations have deteriorated over time, and the process occurs in ways predicted by the steps-to-war theory.