6 ms·

The thing that truly worries me is that once these countries are no longer dependent on each other it will be easier for them to get into war with each other.

by 6d6b73 7y ago

throwayEngineer 7y ago
Retaliation / MAD is a non trivial idea that leaders of nations should understand. I only worry of a cornered politician or spoiled Heir that would ignore this.
kabouseng 7y ago
That line of thinking didn't stop World War I from happening[1]. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/01/what-world-war-i-can-tell-us-about-international-commerce-and-war-today/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9a1c94e99e61 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/0... "Political scientists often argue that international economic relationships can decrease the likelihood that states will engage in war. Nations that might otherwise be inclined to fight can be deterred, informed or transformed by economic interdependence. World War I has been called the “Achilles Heel” of such theories. In the decades before the war, Europe experienced unprecedented growth in international economic interdependence, both through trade and capital flows. Yet war not only broke out, but the scale of its destruction was unprecedented. Economic liberalism went into retreat. How could anyone sustain the notion that trade could prevent war when the most destructive war in history had followed an era of expansive international trade? For decades, scholars and policymakers alike pointed to World War I as providing strong evidence against the liberal case."
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  As I recall it, Barbara Tuchman argues/describes in the Excellent "The Guns of August" that once precautionary mobilization had been ordered in one country, due to the nature of the railway system driven technology behind the logistics of the day, war was pretty much inevitable. Nobody realized "the system" had this side effect before it was started, and once the button was pressed, it was pressed... As your quote says. "economic relationships can decrease the likelihood that states will engage in war". https://smile.amazon.com/Guns-August-Pulitzer-Prize-Winning-Outbreak/dp/0345476093/ https://smile.amazon.com/Guns-August-Pulitzer-Prize-Winning-...
  - iguy 7y ago
    But was this really in the nature of the technology, or was it a choice on the part of the German planners? Choosing to only have an invasion plan, and not bother scheduling out the 80%-option which leaves not quite as many troops but all on your side of the border, and so on down? That sounds like the generals wishing for war, to me, and limiting their masters' options. Not quite parallel, but IIRC it emerged afterwards that the Soviets had no non-nuclear battle plans for Germany. While the US planners kept two sets ready.
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      Well, the nature of the technology certainly added to it. Once the trains were running, troops were flooding to the borders, and if stopped, they couldn't (somehow...) be restarted easily, because all the plans were interlocked so precisely. Or something. Or that's the picture Tuchman paints. Not just on the German side, BTW, but everywhere. Now, this is just a popular history book I recall from memory several decades ago, and the questions you ask sound very relevant!
- crdoconnor 7y ago
  From what I remember there was a period of rapid (although not total) deintegration leading up to WW1 and WW2.
- Retra 7y ago
  By that same argument, murder laws are ineffective because they don't stop serial killers. And traffic laws are ineffective because they didn't stop a big pile up that one time. Earthquake-safe construction is ineffective because it didn't protect against the Big One. You can't point at severity as an argument against a mechanism to control likeliness.
- noobhacker 7y ago
  The article you linked says the opposite of what you quote. Right after the quote, the article's authors say that these claims [about Europe being economically interdependent before WW1] are exaggerated and this do not disprove the theory that interdependence prevents war.
pjc50 7y ago
At one point people claimed "no two countries with a McDonalds had ever been at war with each other"; this was I believe ended by the NATO attacks on Serbia in support of Kosovan forces. It seems possible that the US will get itself into a conflict, possibly (hopefully!) non-total, that disrupts its globalised supply chains and results in massive US business losses. On the other hand, it's hard to see what any non-nuclear opponent could do to the US that would be more damaging than its own opiate manufacturers have already achieved.
- boboguitar 7y ago
  > It seems possible that the US will get itself into a conflict, possibly (hopefully!) non-total, that disrupts its globalised supply chains and results in massive US business losses. Before WW1 happened, people thought there was no way a major war in Europe, entangling the major powers, would happen because all of their economies were tied together and it would result in a major economic collapse. However, the war still happened.
  - Nasrudith 7y ago
    One "good" thing about it is that if they are stupid enough to do it anyway the damage means they are less likely to be capable of repeating their mistakes with the same magnitude. Granted the circumstances can still set the stage afterwards for future conflicts even if the fools responsible lost power as unfortunately demonstrated by WW2.
- mikeash 7y ago
  That McDonald’s thing sounds clever but it boils down to “the US’s Cold War system of alliances lined up closely with its economic ties.”
- the_reformation 7y ago
  Were there no McDonald's in Iraq? Although that exception doesn't disprove the underlying point; Iraq is probably the most developed country America has been at war with since the Second World War.
rjf72 7y ago
It's interesting to see videos of the borders of the world over time. Contrary to intuition, the rate of shifts (often due to warfare) were accelerating over the centuries. Then, suddenly, since 1945 everything comes to a standstill among developed nations excepting the relatively peaceful internal collapse of some communist nations. 1945 of course being when we first detonated a nuclear weapon over another country, twice. The thing that's stopped countries from war has not been trade, amicability, social evolution or anything besides nukes. The reason no developed nations ever go to war is because there is no win condition. If one side or the other is facing significant losses, they will retaliate with nuclear weapons. If that doesn't end the war immediately - it'll shortly result in a flurry with both countries effectively ending each other instead. Mutually assured destruction, as a term, always felt like it somehow missed some of this nuance! The thing that ought actually concern people is the development of anti-missile technology which is rapidly advancing. Highly effective anti-missile technology would signal the return to war. This is why countries such as Russia have been developing things like 'Tsunami Weapons' [1] - a nuclear weapon designed to be detonated under the ocean that could generate radioactive tsunamis thousands of feet high. If that sounds difficult to believe consider that we have nukes in excess of 100 megatons now a days. Hiroshima was 16 kilotons - in other words about 6,250 times more powerful. The point of this being is that I think this will help create a multipolar world and industry - imagine e.g. a new Chinese OS competing against Android/Apple. But I do not think that the current status quo of the world has been playing a meaningful role in deterring war anymore so than a change to a more multipolar world will advance it. I think it's simple. When we can't overcome nukes, we won't have "outright" war - creating an allowance for proxy wars like Vietnam where no nuclear participant's sovereignty is at stake. When we manage to overcome nukes, we will have outright war. [1] - https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-launches-new-submarine-believed-capable-of-carrying-nuclear-armed-drones/29899234.html https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-launches-new-submarine-believ...
- ben_w 7y ago
  > If that sounds difficult to believe consider that we have nukes in excess of 100 megatons No we don’t. The biggest ever was Tsar Bomba, which was 50 Megatons with the option to make it 100. The aircraft that dropped it barely got out of the way in time, and it was only on a plane at all because it was too big and heavy for a missile.
eej71 7y ago
When goods and services don't cross borders, soldiers will.
rossdavidh 7y ago
Well, it would be pretty easy to come up with a lot of counterexamples, principally because neighbors are both more likely to trade with one another, and more likely to go to war with one another. Every colonial war for independence was a war between two entities that were doing a lot of trade (the purpose of the colonial system). The entire colonial empire era was based on making war to enable trade, including the various European wars in China to force them to trade more. Japan was forced to trade with the U.S. by "gunboat diplomacy". The U.S. Carter Doctrine says that we will go to war if anyone tries to prevent us trading for oil. Of course, there are counter-arguments to each of these examples, but that's kind of the point: trade and war don't happen on a random basis, so which one is causing or preventing the other is hard to say. Nations that expect to go to war soon, start looking for other trading partners. It doesn't mean that continuing the trade would have kept the war from happening, it just means wars are usually preceded by a period of rising animosity short of war. Plus, the Ukraine's decision to pursue EU membership did not lead to a reduction of the threat of war in the Ukraine. Quite the opposite, actually.

The thing that truly worries me is that once these countries are no longer dependent on each other it will be easier for them to get into war with each other.

by 6d6b73 7y ago

The thing that truly worries me is that once these countries are no longer dependent on each other it will be easier for them to get into war with each other.

throwayEngineer 7y ago

Retaliation / MAD is a non trivial idea that leaders of nations should understand. I only worry of a cornered politician or spoiled Heir that would ignore this.

kabouseng 7y ago

That line of thinking didn't stop World War I from happening[1]. [1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/01/what-world-war-i-can-tell-us-about-international-commerce-and-war-today/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9a1c94e99e61 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/0... "Political scientists often argue that international economic relationships can decrease the likelihood that states will engage in war. Nations that might otherwise be inclined to fight can be deterred, informed or transformed by economic interdependence. World War I has been called the “Achilles Heel” of such theories. In the decades before the war, Europe experienced unprecedented growth in international economic interdependence, both through trade and capital flows. Yet war not only broke out, but the scale of its destruction was unprecedented. Economic liberalism went into retreat. How could anyone sustain the notion that trade could prevent war when the most destructive war in history had followed an era of expansive international trade? For decades, scholars and policymakers alike pointed to World War I as providing strong evidence against the liberal case."

BurningFrog 7y ago
As I recall it, Barbara Tuchman argues/describes in the Excellent "The Guns of August" that once precautionary mobilization had been ordered in one country, due to the nature of the railway system driven technology behind the logistics of the day, war was pretty much inevitable. Nobody realized "the system" had this side effect before it was started, and once the button was pressed, it was pressed... As your quote says. "economic relationships can decrease the likelihood that states will engage in war". https://smile.amazon.com/Guns-August-Pulitzer-Prize-Winning-Outbreak/dp/0345476093/ https://smile.amazon.com/Guns-August-Pulitzer-Prize-Winning-...
- iguy 7y ago
  But was this really in the nature of the technology, or was it a choice on the part of the German planners? Choosing to only have an invasion plan, and not bother scheduling out the 80%-option which leaves not quite as many troops but all on your side of the border, and so on down? That sounds like the generals wishing for war, to me, and limiting their masters' options. Not quite parallel, but IIRC it emerged afterwards that the Soviets had no non-nuclear battle plans for Germany. While the US planners kept two sets ready.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    Well, the nature of the technology certainly added to it. Once the trains were running, troops were flooding to the borders, and if stopped, they couldn't (somehow...) be restarted easily, because all the plans were interlocked so precisely. Or something. Or that's the picture Tuchman paints. Not just on the German side, BTW, but everywhere. Now, this is just a popular history book I recall from memory several decades ago, and the questions you ask sound very relevant!
crdoconnor 7y ago
From what I remember there was a period of rapid (although not total) deintegration leading up to WW1 and WW2.
Retra 7y ago
By that same argument, murder laws are ineffective because they don't stop serial killers. And traffic laws are ineffective because they didn't stop a big pile up that one time. Earthquake-safe construction is ineffective because it didn't protect against the Big One. You can't point at severity as an argument against a mechanism to control likeliness.
noobhacker 7y ago
The article you linked says the opposite of what you quote. Right after the quote, the article's authors say that these claims [about Europe being economically interdependent before WW1] are exaggerated and this do not disprove the theory that interdependence prevents war.

pjc50 7y ago

At one point people claimed "no two countries with a McDonalds had ever been at war with each other"; this was I believe ended by the NATO attacks on Serbia in support of Kosovan forces. It seems possible that the US will get itself into a conflict, possibly (hopefully!) non-total, that disrupts its globalised supply chains and results in massive US business losses. On the other hand, it's hard to see what any non-nuclear opponent could do to the US that would be more damaging than its own opiate manufacturers have already achieved.

boboguitar 7y ago
> It seems possible that the US will get itself into a conflict, possibly (hopefully!) non-total, that disrupts its globalised supply chains and results in massive US business losses. Before WW1 happened, people thought there was no way a major war in Europe, entangling the major powers, would happen because all of their economies were tied together and it would result in a major economic collapse. However, the war still happened.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  One "good" thing about it is that if they are stupid enough to do it anyway the damage means they are less likely to be capable of repeating their mistakes with the same magnitude. Granted the circumstances can still set the stage afterwards for future conflicts even if the fools responsible lost power as unfortunately demonstrated by WW2.
mikeash 7y ago
That McDonald’s thing sounds clever but it boils down to “the US’s Cold War system of alliances lined up closely with its economic ties.”
the_reformation 7y ago
Were there no McDonald's in Iraq? Although that exception doesn't disprove the underlying point; Iraq is probably the most developed country America has been at war with since the Second World War.

rjf72 7y ago

It's interesting to see videos of the borders of the world over time. Contrary to intuition, the rate of shifts (often due to warfare) were accelerating over the centuries. Then, suddenly, since 1945 everything comes to a standstill among developed nations excepting the relatively peaceful internal collapse of some communist nations. 1945 of course being when we first detonated a nuclear weapon over another country, twice. The thing that's stopped countries from war has not been trade, amicability, social evolution or anything besides nukes. The reason no developed nations ever go to war is because there is no win condition. If one side or the other is facing significant losses, they will retaliate with nuclear weapons. If that doesn't end the war immediately - it'll shortly result in a flurry with both countries effectively ending each other instead. Mutually assured destruction, as a term, always felt like it somehow missed some of this nuance! The thing that ought actually concern people is the development of anti-missile technology which is rapidly advancing. Highly effective anti-missile technology would signal the return to war. This is why countries such as Russia have been developing things like 'Tsunami Weapons' [1] - a nuclear weapon designed to be detonated under the ocean that could generate radioactive tsunamis thousands of feet high. If that sounds difficult to believe consider that we have nukes in excess of 100 megatons now a days. Hiroshima was 16 kilotons - in other words about 6,250 times more powerful. The point of this being is that I think this will help create a multipolar world and industry - imagine e.g. a new Chinese OS competing against Android/Apple. But I do not think that the current status quo of the world has been playing a meaningful role in deterring war anymore so than a change to a more multipolar world will advance it. I think it's simple. When we can't overcome nukes, we won't have "outright" war - creating an allowance for proxy wars like Vietnam where no nuclear participant's sovereignty is at stake. When we manage to overcome nukes, we will have outright war. [1] - https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-launches-new-submarine-believed-capable-of-carrying-nuclear-armed-drones/29899234.html https://www.rferl.org/a/russia-launches-new-submarine-believ...

ben_w 7y ago
> If that sounds difficult to believe consider that we have nukes in excess of 100 megatons No we don’t. The biggest ever was Tsar Bomba, which was 50 Megatons with the option to make it 100. The aircraft that dropped it barely got out of the way in time, and it was only on a plane at all because it was too big and heavy for a missile.

eej71 7y ago

When goods and services don't cross borders, soldiers will.

rossdavidh 7y ago

Well, it would be pretty easy to come up with a lot of counterexamples, principally because neighbors are both more likely to trade with one another, and more likely to go to war with one another. Every colonial war for independence was a war between two entities that were doing a lot of trade (the purpose of the colonial system). The entire colonial empire era was based on making war to enable trade, including the various European wars in China to force them to trade more. Japan was forced to trade with the U.S. by "gunboat diplomacy". The U.S. Carter Doctrine says that we will go to war if anyone tries to prevent us trading for oil. Of course, there are counter-arguments to each of these examples, but that's kind of the point: trade and war don't happen on a random basis, so which one is causing or preventing the other is hard to say. Nations that expect to go to war soon, start looking for other trading partners. It doesn't mean that continuing the trade would have kept the war from happening, it just means wars are usually preceded by a period of rising animosity short of war. Plus, the Ukraine's decision to pursue EU membership did not lead to a reduction of the threat of war in the Ukraine. Quite the opposite, actually.