4 ms·

Si vis pacem, para bellum Military budgets are peace spending. Wars begin when politicians think they can achieve goals easily using arms - see Germany's plans

Si vis pacem, para bellum Military budgets are peace spending. Wars begin when politicians think they can achieve goals easily using arms - see Germany's plans in the World Wars, Saddam's invasion of Iran, Russia's invasion of Ukraine after the 2013 revolution or most wars really. Having strong armed forces and military alliances are an insurance policy against being invaded.

LatteLazy 5y ago
There isn't a linear relationship here. If our militaries were 50% weaker, we'd have thought twice before iraq 2 and we wouldn't be rattling the sabre at iran would we? So right now, for the US and allies, more preparing for war means more (pointless, wasteful) wars...
- indymike 5y ago
  Taiwan would be gone, Korea unified under Kim Jong Un. The soviet union would not have fallen. The world would be radically different.
  - alasdair_ 5y ago
    Would the US actually get into a major conflict with China over Taiwan? I could see a skirmish, but Ukraine has made it clear that the US will not defend its (non-NATO) allies in the face of full scale warfare.
    - laverya 5y ago
      People talk about Trump destroying the US's reputation as an ally, but no one sane should have trusted the US to go to war for them after Ukraine. "If you give up your nukes, we'll protect you", we said. Until we decided it wasn't convenient to do so.
    - indymike 5y ago
      An invasion of Taiwan would result in World War III in about 5 minutes. Seeing Taiwan through the eyes of Eastern Europe would be a mistake. The stakes are well understood, and giving up Taiwan would destabilize Japan, Korea, Australia, Indonesia and India, not a single one of which is acceptable to the US.
      - LatteLazy 5y ago
        If that were the case, the US would form a mitary alliance with Taiwan, including mutual defence like say Nato. Instead the US maintains a policy of "strategic ambiguity" over whether and how much it would interfere were the PRC to try for "reunification" the hard way.
pasabagi 5y ago
It really depends. When that quote of yours was first being said, essentially the only way for states to expand their power was to invade and occupy more territory. So states that did a lot of that tended to become more powerful, leading to a very warlike normal. Nowadays, even radically successful wars are very unreliable means for achieving anything, and wars almost never improve a state's economic situation or power. If Germany had not started WW2, but had instead rested on its greater population and industrialization to increasingly dominate regional politics, you'd see a europe like the one we have today, except even more Germany-centric. Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin, and Adolf Hitler are all examples of weak leaders at the helm of fragile states, throwing the dice repeatedly and basically hoping they get a continual role of sixes until their domestic position is secure. Predictably, it basically never works out. There are almost no examples of successful annexations in today's world: gains are typically temporary, and basically never pay for themselves. So in the world we live in, where war is basically never a sensible strategy for any goal, you can prepare for peace by, you know, preparing for peace - provided that you have no nutso neighbors. In which case, it's worth joining some kind of joint treaty organization. Which is why everybody does this. PS: A second thing is, it's no use having a ton of outdated equipment. The USSR had a lot of trouble in WW2 because they had been arming up for too long. It's often better to move to a war footing just a few years before things get hairy than it is to keep massive amounts of obsolete weaponry sitting around.
light_hue_1 5y ago
> Wars begin when politicians think they can achieve goals easily using arms - see Germany's plans in the World Wars, Saddam's invasion of Iran, Russia's invasion of Ukraine after the 2013 revolution or most wars really. That's like saying "wars start when someone thinks they can get something out of it" Well, that's meaningless. The idea that simply having a lot of weapons handy stops wars is absurd. That's what we learned in WW1. Simply put "Si vis pacem, para bellum" has been trash for 100 years. Wars happen for many reasons, even when people think they might lose the war! - Ethnic strife (the Yugoslav wars) - Humanitarian reasons (NATO intervention in Yugoslavia) - They think that the other side would give in for a settled peace (Japan in WW2; Japan knew it could not completely defeat the US) - Leaders want power and develop an external enemy (Hitler) - Leaders think they will be limited (pretty much everyone in WW1) We could go on. Wars are a tool for different aims. Winning is obviously the goal, but wars don't happen like in video games like Civilization where you weigh the pros and cons of how many cities you want to capture and decide it's worth it.
- dimitar 5y ago
  The key word here is "easily" lets examine your examples: - Miloshevich thought that by controlling the Yugoslav army he could easily beat the seceding states. Wrong, but at the beginning it certainly looked that way. - NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. A collapsing state that was doing genocide. Drop a few bombs to destroy their will to fight in Kosovo and let the Kosovars take over and do the heavy fighting. It was an easy war from the NATO POV! Is NATO reacting the same way when Russia does the same as Serbia? - US Iraq wars - isolated country that had outdated weaponry. The US did win them easily. At least the conventional part, but they underestimated the amount of nation-building that is needed. - Hitler was used to appeasement, had a deal with Stalin (Molotov-Ribentrop) and knew that France and Britain didn't really want to fight. He was right about that all through the early months of the war. If France, the UK and USSR made clear that any shenanigans would result in a two or more front war, WWII would have been avoided. Hitler also thought that the USSR would collapse before winter 1941.. - WWI is the best example of all. No one thought that the war would last more than a few months, so it was a race to mobilise the quickly and attack your enemies. The Germans in particular thought they will quickly overrun France if they only went through neutral Belgium and Luxemburg.. This is why nuclear weapons are the best deterrent - even if you think you can win a nuclear war, the victory will not be sweet or easy.

LatteLazy 5y ago

There isn't a linear relationship here. If our militaries were 50% weaker, we'd have thought twice before iraq 2 and we wouldn't be rattling the sabre at iran would we? So right now, for the US and allies, more preparing for war means more (pointless, wasteful) wars...

indymike 5y ago
Taiwan would be gone, Korea unified under Kim Jong Un. The soviet union would not have fallen. The world would be radically different.
- alasdair_ 5y ago
  Would the US actually get into a major conflict with China over Taiwan? I could see a skirmish, but Ukraine has made it clear that the US will not defend its (non-NATO) allies in the face of full scale warfare.
  - laverya 5y ago
    People talk about Trump destroying the US's reputation as an ally, but no one sane should have trusted the US to go to war for them after Ukraine. "If you give up your nukes, we'll protect you", we said. Until we decided it wasn't convenient to do so.
  - indymike 5y ago
    An invasion of Taiwan would result in World War III in about 5 minutes. Seeing Taiwan through the eyes of Eastern Europe would be a mistake. The stakes are well understood, and giving up Taiwan would destabilize Japan, Korea, Australia, Indonesia and India, not a single one of which is acceptable to the US.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      If that were the case, the US would form a mitary alliance with Taiwan, including mutual defence like say Nato. Instead the US maintains a policy of "strategic ambiguity" over whether and how much it would interfere were the PRC to try for "reunification" the hard way.

pasabagi 5y ago

It really depends. When that quote of yours was first being said, essentially the only way for states to expand their power was to invade and occupy more territory. So states that did a lot of that tended to become more powerful, leading to a very warlike normal. Nowadays, even radically successful wars are very unreliable means for achieving anything, and wars almost never improve a state's economic situation or power. If Germany had not started WW2, but had instead rested on its greater population and industrialization to increasingly dominate regional politics, you'd see a europe like the one we have today, except even more Germany-centric. Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin, and Adolf Hitler are all examples of weak leaders at the helm of fragile states, throwing the dice repeatedly and basically hoping they get a continual role of sixes until their domestic position is secure. Predictably, it basically never works out. There are almost no examples of successful annexations in today's world: gains are typically temporary, and basically never pay for themselves. So in the world we live in, where war is basically never a sensible strategy for any goal, you can prepare for peace by, you know, preparing for peace - provided that you have no nutso neighbors. In which case, it's worth joining some kind of joint treaty organization. Which is why everybody does this. PS: A second thing is, it's no use having a ton of outdated equipment. The USSR had a lot of trouble in WW2 because they had been arming up for too long. It's often better to move to a war footing just a few years before things get hairy than it is to keep massive amounts of obsolete weaponry sitting around.

light_hue_1 5y ago

> Wars begin when politicians think they can achieve goals easily using arms - see Germany's plans in the World Wars, Saddam's invasion of Iran, Russia's invasion of Ukraine after the 2013 revolution or most wars really. That's like saying "wars start when someone thinks they can get something out of it" Well, that's meaningless. The idea that simply having a lot of weapons handy stops wars is absurd. That's what we learned in WW1. Simply put "Si vis pacem, para bellum" has been trash for 100 years. Wars happen for many reasons, even when people think they might lose the war! - Ethnic strife (the Yugoslav wars) - Humanitarian reasons (NATO intervention in Yugoslavia) - They think that the other side would give in for a settled peace (Japan in WW2; Japan knew it could not completely defeat the US) - Leaders want power and develop an external enemy (Hitler) - Leaders think they will be limited (pretty much everyone in WW1) We could go on. Wars are a tool for different aims. Winning is obviously the goal, but wars don't happen like in video games like Civilization where you weigh the pros and cons of how many cities you want to capture and decide it's worth it.

dimitar 5y ago
The key word here is "easily" lets examine your examples: - Miloshevich thought that by controlling the Yugoslav army he could easily beat the seceding states. Wrong, but at the beginning it certainly looked that way. - NATO intervention in Yugoslavia. A collapsing state that was doing genocide. Drop a few bombs to destroy their will to fight in Kosovo and let the Kosovars take over and do the heavy fighting. It was an easy war from the NATO POV! Is NATO reacting the same way when Russia does the same as Serbia? - US Iraq wars - isolated country that had outdated weaponry. The US did win them easily. At least the conventional part, but they underestimated the amount of nation-building that is needed. - Hitler was used to appeasement, had a deal with Stalin (Molotov-Ribentrop) and knew that France and Britain didn't really want to fight. He was right about that all through the early months of the war. If France, the UK and USSR made clear that any shenanigans would result in a two or more front war, WWII would have been avoided. Hitler also thought that the USSR would collapse before winter 1941.. - WWI is the best example of all. No one thought that the war would last more than a few months, so it was a race to mobilise the quickly and attack your enemies. The Germans in particular thought they will quickly overrun France if they only went through neutral Belgium and Luxemburg.. This is why nuclear weapons are the best deterrent - even if you think you can win a nuclear war, the victory will not be sweet or easy.