3 ms·

Rape of Nanjing, invasion of Manchuria. I believe the notion that states are driven to war by resources seeking, which can result simply from incompetent gover

by dosy 7y ago

Rape of Nanjing, invasion of Manchuria. I believe the notion that states are driven to war by resources seeking, which can result simply from incompetent government, poor tax collection, or natural catastrophe. So global prosperity is the best deterrent to war. The notion also guides which states you should assess are security or war threats -- the ones with that have economic capacity to meet their own growth, or the failed ones, with a large dissatisfied population easily roused to anger at a fabricated external scapegoat. Genghis Khan neutralized his powerful competitors by making them rich. Perhaps, and this is possibly quite a reach, Japan's war mongering was driven quite a lot by its self-imposed trade isolation that depleted the state coffers, than by inherent expansionist rhetoric which was simply mobilized to motivate.

throwaway2048 7y ago
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9555708/We-mustnt-fall-for-The-Great-Illusion-again.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/955570... Economic prosperity and co-dependence is absolutely not a barrier to war. This line of thinking was an extremely popular explanation of why something like World War I couldn't happen. And then it did,
- dosy 7y ago
  Interesting thanks for the share.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  Is it possible for something to be a barrier but for other factors to overcome the barrier? One shouldn't call it an absolutely unbreakable barrier, but there are less absolute barriers.
SkyBelow 7y ago
>I believe the notion that states are driven to war by resources seeking, which can result simply from incompetent government, poor tax collection, or natural catastrophe. So global prosperity is the best deterrent to war. This is assuming the definitions of resources line up. Some things that should be treated as a resource based on historic evidence of human behavior are not, thus they aren't included in global prosperity guidelines and thus the potential for them to create conflict and human right abuses (even if they don't escalate to war) persists even when optimizing for prosperity. As an example, consider the gender disparity in China that is driving a massive and growing human trafficking problem despite an increase in prosperity.
- dosy 7y ago
  Poorer women and men from poorer countries have forever traveled to rich lands in search of partners and opportunities. The "left behind" (say the surplus of men in Vietnam, far greater than in China, in any case) are obviously unhappy about the situation and blaming "China" or "America" is an easy scapegoat, but the issues are less foreign and more domestic and economic. It's always easier to blame foreigners, but looking within the country and taking responsibility is the only way to better the situation of its inhabitants. When emotive issues like sex and marriage are involved people understandably get confused and forget that. A great positive for China is the equality of gender opportunity has created the situation where many hard working, intelligent women choose a career, business or personal focus over relationships. And a female-heavy workforce is actually a boon for national security, and more men able to work more hours a boon for the economy. It's those other countries, those with many young and angry youth, but without the strong economies to put them to work, and easily angered by issues such as blaming foreign states, that are more security risks for creating war.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    >The "left behind" (say the surplus of men in Vietnam, far greater than in China, in any case) are obviously unhappy about the situation and blaming "China" or "America" is an easy scapegoat, but the issues are less foreign and more domestic and economic. Regardless of the root cause, these tensions can give rise to issues that can push countries to war, or to the current day equivalent in this era of MAD.
    - dosy 7y ago
      not really. countries go to war not because their populations are aggrieved, but because it economically makes sense for war. agrievments of the population are simply tools to motivate people, rouse and direct their energies towards the goal. if war is not the goal but rather peace, an interacting mesh of these tensions can be used to stabilize the population. direct their energy towards each other rather than towards creating change, for instance. I think you misunderstand the Dynamics.
belorn 7y ago
It is a peculiar aspect that states which are driven to war by resources seeking usually tend to fight war through forced military drafts of young and often poor men.

by dosy 7y ago

throwaway2048 7y ago

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/9555708/We-mustnt-fall-for-The-Great-Illusion-again.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/955570... Economic prosperity and co-dependence is absolutely not a barrier to war. This line of thinking was an extremely popular explanation of why something like World War I couldn't happen. And then it did,

dosy 7y ago
Interesting thanks for the share.
SkyBelow 7y ago
Is it possible for something to be a barrier but for other factors to overcome the barrier? One shouldn't call it an absolutely unbreakable barrier, but there are less absolute barriers.

SkyBelow 7y ago

>I believe the notion that states are driven to war by resources seeking, which can result simply from incompetent government, poor tax collection, or natural catastrophe. So global prosperity is the best deterrent to war. This is assuming the definitions of resources line up. Some things that should be treated as a resource based on historic evidence of human behavior are not, thus they aren't included in global prosperity guidelines and thus the potential for them to create conflict and human right abuses (even if they don't escalate to war) persists even when optimizing for prosperity. As an example, consider the gender disparity in China that is driving a massive and growing human trafficking problem despite an increase in prosperity.

dosy 7y ago
Poorer women and men from poorer countries have forever traveled to rich lands in search of partners and opportunities. The "left behind" (say the surplus of men in Vietnam, far greater than in China, in any case) are obviously unhappy about the situation and blaming "China" or "America" is an easy scapegoat, but the issues are less foreign and more domestic and economic. It's always easier to blame foreigners, but looking within the country and taking responsibility is the only way to better the situation of its inhabitants. When emotive issues like sex and marriage are involved people understandably get confused and forget that. A great positive for China is the equality of gender opportunity has created the situation where many hard working, intelligent women choose a career, business or personal focus over relationships. And a female-heavy workforce is actually a boon for national security, and more men able to work more hours a boon for the economy. It's those other countries, those with many young and angry youth, but without the strong economies to put them to work, and easily angered by issues such as blaming foreign states, that are more security risks for creating war.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  >The "left behind" (say the surplus of men in Vietnam, far greater than in China, in any case) are obviously unhappy about the situation and blaming "China" or "America" is an easy scapegoat, but the issues are less foreign and more domestic and economic. Regardless of the root cause, these tensions can give rise to issues that can push countries to war, or to the current day equivalent in this era of MAD.
  - dosy 7y ago
    not really. countries go to war not because their populations are aggrieved, but because it economically makes sense for war. agrievments of the population are simply tools to motivate people, rouse and direct their energies towards the goal. if war is not the goal but rather peace, an interacting mesh of these tensions can be used to stabilize the population. direct their energy towards each other rather than towards creating change, for instance. I think you misunderstand the Dynamics.

belorn 7y ago

It is a peculiar aspect that states which are driven to war by resources seeking usually tend to fight war through forced military drafts of young and often poor men.