3 ms·
Unpredictability is probably dangerous. If an alliance is credible, then it's a solid deterrent. The alliances in 1914 was less credible than NATO. Many were
by jopsen 6y ago
Unpredictability is probably dangerous.
If an alliance is credible, then it's a solid deterrent.
The alliances in 1914 was less credible than NATO. Many were secret, as was mobilization plans and implications of such plans. It's my impression that the list of things triggered WWI is very long :)
- runarberg 6y agoNote that I’m never saying Military alliances are the thing that cause wars, but they do tend to escalate them and they do seem to hinder peaceful solutions to conflicts.
- jopsen 6y agoAn analysis of all the wars that didn't happen, might show otherwise :) I don't have the evidence to say that it will show otherwise. But we know that any participation in international organizations reduces risks of war, whether by correlation or causation I don't recall. Either way, armed conflict is becoming less frequent and less violent. One could argue that progress could come faster without NATO, but given that we have no evidence that a dramatically different cause of action will reduce risk of war, and we know that current trajectory is bending towards less war. Maybe staying on the current trajectory isn't so bad :) Generally speaking, any kind of quick major changes tends to cause conflicts. So even if we did want to end NATO, it's probably be best to do it slowly. Ideally, we would just slowly extend NATO to cover all countries. That way nobody can attack anyone else :) I would want countries to be reasonably democratic before they join though...