5 ms·

Well, it's not like nobody has ever thought of that before. The best we've been able to do is deterrence, which requires developing advanced weapons like aircra

by cwp 5y ago

Well, it's not like nobody has ever thought of that before. The best we've been able to do is deterrence, which requires developing advanced weapons like aircraft carriers, stealth fighters and nukes. I know this isn't what you had in mind, but the world is about to find out what it's like to not have superpowers interfering in their affairs. The US doesn't really have any need for troops abroad: the Cold War is over, the War on Terror is over, and there's plenty of oil at home. Americans have noticed that depending on foreign manufacturing for key products like medicines and microchips isn't so great when trade is disrupted, and there are going to be a lot more disruptions without the US military to stabilize things. That's going to cause America to do more manufacturing at home and further disengage with the world. That's not exactly peace, but at least it's not war.

curuinor 5y ago
if you don't have hegemony, you have the balance of powers: if you don't have the balance of powers, you have hegemony. if we're getting out from hegemony we'll go into the balance of powers (you can sort of see this in the everyone-surrounding-the-prc's reaction to the prc: everyone gangs up together to balance out the putative new hegemon) you need total consensus down to the last man for pacifism to work. works great in groups of 10 people, not so much with groups of 2 billion: you need to credibly threaten the insane yelling person while making sure you're not the insane yelling person yourself
- c048 5y ago
  Balance of power caused millennia of war in Europe. Forming a hegemony has lead to almost 80 years of peace. Large wars haven't been a thing since the dominance of the US and been pushed further and further to the periphery, especially since the end of the cold war.
  - curuinor 5y ago
    bismark and metternich and so on managed to run around and mostly keep a general european peace with the balance of powers for 80 years from the 1820s on. too bad it all went to shit - but current events are not incompatible with the assertion that it's all going to shit this decade...
- rm445 5y ago
  What's really weird is it's a world of about 200 "people" (sovereign states), completely without outside authority. Historically it has all been about power, with international law having a minor role - but it seems conceivable that all the nations could police one another and all international law could become much more effectively binding. It wouldn't be as effective as universal pacifism, just like the police can't prevent all murders - but they can deter them. It could be a future that still has nation states rather than a world government, without any superpowers.
wombatmobile 5y ago
> Well, it's not like nobody has ever thought of that before. Naturally. What we haven't done before is invested in tools. We've invested trillions to make tools for advertising, but almost nothing to make tools for achieving peace. > The best we've been able to do is deterrence, which requires developing advanced weapons like aircraft carriers, stealth fighters and nukes. I'm not suggesting war or deterrence can be obsoleted. Human nature is what it is. What if for every $1 trillion of sticks, we had $1 trillion of carrots? 50 years from now, what if the 3rd generation carrots scaled better than the sticks, which don't scale at all?
- dukeyukey 5y ago
  > We've invested trillions to make tools for advertising, but almost nothing to make tools for achieving peace. I'd argue the European Union was an experiment in peace along these lines, to bind a war-torn continent so close together that war becomes unthinkable. And it's worked - war between France and Germany, or the UK and Ireland, or Denmark and Sweden is unthinkable.
  - sgt101 5y ago
    Hang on, I think you forgot something... OH YES! The US has parked an army in Germany for 75 years! I dunno, but could this have been a factor in the "no war between European powers" thing? And when we say "war between the UK and Ireland... unthinkable" do we mean that no-one is going to bomb or shoot people in the UK or Ireland to attempt to achieve a political objective in the relationships between those two countries? That would be jolly nice if it were come to pass !
    - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
      Pretty sure it wasn't NATO that kept France from invading Germany, and vice versa. Or kept Spain from attempting to annex Portugal. Or even just Gibraltar. But please provide some citations if that's incorrect.
      - 5y ago
berdario 5y ago
Yankees truly defy parody... > there are going to be a lot more disruptions without the US military to stabilize things Or, you know... there are going to be a lot fewer disruptions without the US military to destabilize things
- vimy 5y ago
  The US navy patrolling the oceans for the last 70 years was one prerequisite for globalization, and thus the world’s current level wealth, to happen. There used to be a lot more piracy or rogue states intercepting cargo. To deny the positive effect Pax Americana had on the world is denying history. Doesn’t mean it was all roses and sunshine but better than what came before.
- cwp 5y ago
  Here are a few examples: - Japan and Korea were historically enemies. But they've been at peace since WWII, mainly because both have US troops stationed there. Any time tensions flare up, the US does a little diplomacy and they make nice. That will probably continue for a while, even without US troops because both countries value the alliance with the US and don't want to be dominated by China. - With the US withdrawing from the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is arming its self and allying with Israel (!) to deal with the threat from Iran. Iran, meanwhile is emboldened to attack Saudi oil fields and threaten shipping through the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile Yemen has destabilized, leaving Saudi Arabi to worry about whether it will be able to get access to the Arabian Sea. Hard to predict how this shakes out, but I can't see it being peaceful and stable. - As soon as the US showed signs of disinterest in Europe, Russia annexed Crimea. With that experiment having been successful, they'll be looking for more opportunities to take back bits of the USSR. Now Europe is arming up to protect themselves from that threat. The catch is that Europe needs oil and natural gas, and that's mainly coming from Russia right now. We may see internal conflict in Europe over whether to be friendlier to Russia to secure that supply, and perhaps increased European presence in the Middle East. Either way, stability in that part of the world has decreased without US willingness to commit troops and money to maintaining it.

by cwp 5y ago

curuinor 5y ago

if you don't have hegemony, you have the balance of powers: if you don't have the balance of powers, you have hegemony. if we're getting out from hegemony we'll go into the balance of powers (you can sort of see this in the everyone-surrounding-the-prc's reaction to the prc: everyone gangs up together to balance out the putative new hegemon) you need total consensus down to the last man for pacifism to work. works great in groups of 10 people, not so much with groups of 2 billion: you need to credibly threaten the insane yelling person while making sure you're not the insane yelling person yourself

c048 5y ago
Balance of power caused millennia of war in Europe. Forming a hegemony has lead to almost 80 years of peace. Large wars haven't been a thing since the dominance of the US and been pushed further and further to the periphery, especially since the end of the cold war.
- curuinor 5y ago
  bismark and metternich and so on managed to run around and mostly keep a general european peace with the balance of powers for 80 years from the 1820s on. too bad it all went to shit - but current events are not incompatible with the assertion that it's all going to shit this decade...
rm445 5y ago
What's really weird is it's a world of about 200 "people" (sovereign states), completely without outside authority. Historically it has all been about power, with international law having a minor role - but it seems conceivable that all the nations could police one another and all international law could become much more effectively binding. It wouldn't be as effective as universal pacifism, just like the police can't prevent all murders - but they can deter them. It could be a future that still has nation states rather than a world government, without any superpowers.

wombatmobile 5y ago

> Well, it's not like nobody has ever thought of that before. Naturally. What we haven't done before is invested in tools. We've invested trillions to make tools for advertising, but almost nothing to make tools for achieving peace. > The best we've been able to do is deterrence, which requires developing advanced weapons like aircraft carriers, stealth fighters and nukes. I'm not suggesting war or deterrence can be obsoleted. Human nature is what it is. What if for every $1 trillion of sticks, we had $1 trillion of carrots? 50 years from now, what if the 3rd generation carrots scaled better than the sticks, which don't scale at all?

dukeyukey 5y ago
> We've invested trillions to make tools for advertising, but almost nothing to make tools for achieving peace. I'd argue the European Union was an experiment in peace along these lines, to bind a war-torn continent so close together that war becomes unthinkable. And it's worked - war between France and Germany, or the UK and Ireland, or Denmark and Sweden is unthinkable.
- sgt101 5y ago
  Hang on, I think you forgot something... OH YES! The US has parked an army in Germany for 75 years! I dunno, but could this have been a factor in the "no war between European powers" thing? And when we say "war between the UK and Ireland... unthinkable" do we mean that no-one is going to bomb or shoot people in the UK or Ireland to attempt to achieve a political objective in the relationships between those two countries? That would be jolly nice if it were come to pass !
  - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
    Pretty sure it wasn't NATO that kept France from invading Germany, and vice versa. Or kept Spain from attempting to annex Portugal. Or even just Gibraltar. But please provide some citations if that's incorrect.
    - 5y ago

berdario 5y ago

Yankees truly defy parody... > there are going to be a lot more disruptions without the US military to stabilize things Or, you know... there are going to be a lot fewer disruptions without the US military to destabilize things

vimy 5y ago
The US navy patrolling the oceans for the last 70 years was one prerequisite for globalization, and thus the world’s current level wealth, to happen. There used to be a lot more piracy or rogue states intercepting cargo. To deny the positive effect Pax Americana had on the world is denying history. Doesn’t mean it was all roses and sunshine but better than what came before.
cwp 5y ago
Here are a few examples: - Japan and Korea were historically enemies. But they've been at peace since WWII, mainly because both have US troops stationed there. Any time tensions flare up, the US does a little diplomacy and they make nice. That will probably continue for a while, even without US troops because both countries value the alliance with the US and don't want to be dominated by China. - With the US withdrawing from the Middle East, Saudi Arabia is arming its self and allying with Israel (!) to deal with the threat from Iran. Iran, meanwhile is emboldened to attack Saudi oil fields and threaten shipping through the Persian Gulf. Meanwhile Yemen has destabilized, leaving Saudi Arabi to worry about whether it will be able to get access to the Arabian Sea. Hard to predict how this shakes out, but I can't see it being peaceful and stable. - As soon as the US showed signs of disinterest in Europe, Russia annexed Crimea. With that experiment having been successful, they'll be looking for more opportunities to take back bits of the USSR. Now Europe is arming up to protect themselves from that threat. The catch is that Europe needs oil and natural gas, and that's mainly coming from Russia right now. We may see internal conflict in Europe over whether to be friendlier to Russia to secure that supply, and perhaps increased European presence in the Middle East. Either way, stability in that part of the world has decreased without US willingness to commit troops and money to maintaining it.