This article investigates the potential use of prospect theory to understand civil–military disputes over the use of force. Specifically, I argue that distinct realms of responsibility can lead civilian and military authorities to inhabit different frames of reference when confronting the same crisis. This divergence in perspective causes each to asses risk in fundamentally disparate ways and ultimately produces competing policy recommendations. To illustrate this theory, I analyze the case of the 1976 Korean tree cutting incident. During this crisis, American military authorities define the situation narrowly as pertaining to the Korean peninsula, whereas the civilian leadership viewed it as part of a global challenge to American resolve. As a result, each party weighed the risks of escalation differently and promoted conflicting policy prescriptions.