10 ms·

"If we just...." Young Americans, in general, do not understand or internalize national security or great power competition; and instead project high ideals an

• dougmwne 5y ago
  This is very true. I think for young people it's very difficult to appreciate that we live on the knife's edge of peace. Peace is not the natural human condition, and vast numbers of people are ready and willing to commit incredible violence and atrocities in the name of their tribe. Absolutely nothing about human nature has changed since the uncountable wars we have fought since our very first moments as a species. Peace exists only in the liminal space between great violence and terrible powers.
  • hyperdimension 5y ago
    > knife's edge of peace This phrasing reminded me of a comment I favorited a while ago, so I went through my favorited comments and found it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5847789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5847789 "It took thousands of years of human civilisation before we got relatively benign governments. Power structures are not inherently benign; they must constantly be pressured to prevent malignant people using them to leverage their actions. A non-authoritarian government is an historical anomaly. It's a ball balanced on top of a hill, pushed there by the deaths of millions, and kept there by the vigilance of those who care. Please start caring."
    • dougmwne 5y ago
      Indeed. Or like the ISS in low earth orbit. It took enormous energy to put it into that decaying orbit and constant infusions of energy to keep it there. We will come crashing down to earth quite quickly if we can't keep up the balance.
  • howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
    Peace is the natural human condition in small groups. As the groups increase in size so does competition, insecurity and conflicts of interest. Its this dynamic that gives rise to conflating our own peaceful orbits with tribal or state rivalry; and conversely its often an abused imbalance of our interpersonal relationships that gives rise to individual leaders with power compulsivity.
    • dougmwne 5y ago
      Oh is it now? I'm so happy for you and your harmonious family.
    • prepend 5y ago
      > Peace is the natural human condition in small groups. I don’t think this is true. I read Sapiens by Harari and he presents lots of info on how early man, living in small groups was very violent. With gravesites from the time showing violent deaths at young ages. I romantically would like to think this but believe the reality is that humans are violent and it’s large civilizations with complicated rule of law and interdependency is the reason for peace. Sort of the Leviathan argument that humans are evil and it’s a struggle to overcome and improve on that nature. Although I hope that one day this changes and we eventually evolve to be more peaceful. Evolutionarily speaking I think violence was too much of a shortcut to survival so mammals evolved against peace.
      • dougmwne 5y ago
        Yes, peace is a technology for sure.
  • A4ET8a8uTh0 5y ago
    Edge of peace. I like that phrase. I may end up borrowing it. I think overall I agree with your post. We truly do suck as a species. The past few decades were a massive aberration in our history ( and even that relatively peaceful -- for a westerner -- period saw some horrifying conflicts that just did not make the front pages ). I do not wish for another major conflict. No sane person does. We should do what we can to prevent it. Still, I personally see one on the horizon. Best I can do is talk to my social circle, but even that seems futile. The actual decisions about matters like these happen way outside those.
  • edrxty 5y ago
    Disagree. I'm in the 'young' bracket here but researching geopolitics/military is something of a hobby for me. I'm not arguing that the young are all like me, but rather that I applaud my generation for being skeptical, at least from an intervention POV. I still side strongly with Ukraine but this is a complex issue and rolling the tanks against a country with less GDP than NY does not make the world inherently safer. The older generations, on the other hand, were raised in the context of Russia being a world power while at this time they've revealed themselves to be objectively not. However, a Sino-Russian alliance would be an absolute nightmare scenario and direct military involvement would give China a possible excuse to back Russia. As long as they remain neutral-ish then it's safe to let this play out, particularly given how things are going so far. Now, the area that concerns me is how many are openly supporting Russia. Skepticism is great but I don't think there's any reason to voice support for Russia at this time.
    • ramesh31 5y ago
      >I still side strongly with Ukraine but this is a complex issue and rolling the tanks against a country with less GDP than NY does not make the world inherently safer. Putin takes Luhansk and Donestsk, consolidates the southern coast, and links to Transnistria. Ukraine is now a landlocked welfare case for Europe, with millions of refugees streaming out and a government in collapse. Just like that, Russia has a salient into Western europe, and the world order of national sovereignty comes to an end. There is no complexity to the issue. This is the clearest, most mortal threat to Western civilization since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Do not fall for "let's hear both sides" whataboutism. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes in life there is simply right and wrong.
      • edrxty 5y ago
        That's why I left the "at this time" caveat in there. Yeah, if the Russian military actually gets its shit together and manages an offensive that achieves that we need to reevaluate but...I don't think they have any chance of pulling that off. Their troops have spent weeks retreating from a meat grinder with nonexistent morale and will be asked to do it all again, "but it'll work this time". Further, would you take landlocked Ukraine and possible welfare state over a Sino-Russian axis? I think I would. This isn't "let's hear both sides" it's "this will get really nasty if we pull the old so-i-started-blasting strategy."
  • nemothekid 5y ago
    >We live on the knife's edge of peace Peace for who? America just formally ended a 20 year long war, with very little to show for it. Someone who is 18 today, has only known America in a time of war. How can you call this peace? (I know how, it's because you only talk about peace as peace for western nations.) Anyone would immediately be skeptical to the thought that we should immediately enter another war several thousand miles away. It's only when majority white western christians are being blown up that we are at the "knife's edge of peace". What is it called when it's muslims in the middle east or northern africa being blown up? I'm not convinced America needs to be proactive in an engagement with Russia to hold up what you consider "the knife's edge of peace".
    • rootusrootus 5y ago
      > How can you call this peace? I think you already know the answer to that. When the 20 year old war is mostly all about sending some soldiers over to the middle east to bomb it, then it doesn't really feel like a war. For people in the US who choose to ignore it, they absolutely live in peace every day.
    • dash2 5y ago
      You, too, may experience a difference if war comes not for a faraway people whom you like to feel indignant about, but to your own country, landing on your doorstep and destroying your neighbourhood. Perhaps it's very wrong that you will feel differently. But you will. That is what the knife edge means. Using the miseries of far-off people to encourage cowardice or putting your head in the sand is wrong, and foolish.
    • lolinder 5y ago
      Afghanistan and Iraq were and remained local conflicts. Twice in the last century and once in the century before (Napoleon), a local conflict in Europe escalated into a world war in which millions died in the span of a few years. That doesn't make the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq right or just (I don't believe they were), but Europe has long been an extremely dangerous powder keg. We have had relative peace in the last 70 years because European great powers have successfully avoided actively shooting at each other. This move by Russia is a major threat to that stability and is categorically different than the invasions in the Middle East not because of race but because of the likelihood of escalation.
  • throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    The people who came of age after the internet but before it was censored into something safe enough to sell ads on are far more aware of how nasty things can be than the people before and since. If anyone is gonna set out on a path of "real violence" it's likely going to be a subgroup of millennials. Edit: the above only applies to the US
  • pessimizer 5y ago
    > I think for young people it's very difficult to appreciate that we live on the knife's edge of peace. That doesn't seem like thought that supports the position of the old, as characterized here, who are encouraging the escalation of a war against a nuclear power with a ruined economy. I blame the generational gap on that particular US generation who has lived through major wars but never had to worry about war on their own territory, who have gone through wars where only an extreme minority have had to participate (and that being privileged enough to be in college or to have an important job was enough to get you out of participation), and who have been hammered by propaganda their entire lives that the final battle would be the commies vs the bootstrappers. Half of them are praying that this will be the end of the world, like God said it would be. They supported every war except Vietnam, because Vietnam was the only war they were in danger of participating in. Those wars didn't affect them badly at all, in fact the wars helped the economy because everybody got jobs creating expensive things that would be burned (in the occupied homes of Iraqi families.) I would call them a reflection of Russian nationalist aggression, but they're really not, because Russians have known suffering from war. Russians have pretty good excuses not to want NATO weapons, missile defense systems, and troops stationed on their border. Americans are afraid of their vital fluids being corrupted by the demonic Russians and their sole goal of creating discord by spreading propaganda that the issues that everybody who isn't an old wealthy retired homeowner is concerned about aren't something that should be completely ignored. Young people generally see them as insane chickenhawks that are useless domestically and hyperaggressive internationally, and rightfully so.
• Barrin92 5y ago
  I think this is an extremely ungenerous take. I think more objectively young Americans simply have different ideological preferences than older Americans. The cold war mentality, talk of "free and open" societies is in itself deeply ideological, not "facing reality head on". It's the wish to remake or maintain the world in America's image. If anything I think young Americans are the less ideological group here. They see America's domestic issues, international overreach, they have less of a preference for liberalism in the broad sense of the term, and they demand a foreign policy that is more focused on America's domestic interests in the face of a changing, more multipolar world. the general opinion of younger Americans seems much more aligned with realist schools of foreign policy than with the moralistic, idealistic mentality of older generations.
  • creato 5y ago
    Realist as determined by some social media bubble, some of which are engineered by foreign intelligence agencies, sure.
    • peppustimbus 5y ago
    • _gkwp 5y ago
      Which intelligence agencies do you think have the most control of the Twitter discourse?
  • kurthr 5y ago
    There are levels of grey to open (e.g. free speech, expression, democracy) vs closed (e.g. prison for political speech, totalitarianism), but the US and EU are a world apart from Russia or China. I recommend speaking to someone (who isn't state sponsored as many Tiktok & Youtube influencers are) from that country to understand. Do not think that you will not be shot by a conscripted soldier who wants your stuff to take back to his impoverished family or that if you are it will make the world a better more "equal" place. Many Russians are afraid of the return of soldiers from this war (special operation?), because each time before it has led to more violence. Having your pronoun misused by a teacher in school isn't right, but it is fundamentally different type of oppression from working in a prison camp in Siberia or Xinjiang.
• nemothekid 5y ago
  This is a very condescending view of Young Americans. I think any analysis that does not start with an economic analysis of Americans today vs Americans 40 years ago is bound to end up on these soft attributes of "ideals and generosity". It's abundantly clear for any Young American, that there is no upside to war. If American maintains her dominance, then they are still suffering under a gerontocracy and growing wealth inequality. What person would risk nuclear war for the privilege to struggle to pay rent every month? Likewise, the risk of a Sino-Russian alliance only effects those who stand to extract rent from "democratic" countries (in the form of foreign ownership). If capital is increasingly owned by a small few, why should Young Americans care if their oligarchs are American or Chinese? I think most Young Americans don't have the luxury of wondering about power competition especially since so many of them don't have a stake in the game. It's hard to convince people the effects of what Russian oil dominance will have where they deal with much more pressing survival issues that are a lot closer to them.
  • howmayiannoyyou 5y ago
    > If capital is increasingly owned by a small few, why should Young Americans care if their oligarchs are American or Chinese? Here's why: - Rule of law, including health, safety & environment. - Minority rights. - Free-ish speech. - Mostly equal application of law. Could say more, but you get the point.
    • pueblito 5y ago
      Does China have those things? Because America certainly doesnt
    • nemothekid 5y ago
      I really don't understand this response. Are you seriously implying that today most young Americans have an healthy environment? At least China is pretending to roll out some sort of universal health coverage. Minority rights? Let's ignore our own highly politicized conversations on minority rights and look to our allies, like Israel. I'm not sure I see too much a difference of the genocide of the Uighurs in China and the genocide of the Palestinians. So no, I don't get the point. The bullet points you have posted are shaky at best and don't convince me that anyone should risk nuclear war for "ideas" like "free-ish speech". I'm not implying China is perfect; or that America is wholly evil. It's that you must consider the day-to-day implications for _most_ Americans (who are probably unlike you and don't make six figures working in tech or own any capital), and that the system doesn't provide any material returns to them; and therefore any "change in leadership" is likely immaterial. Risking nuclear war, and billions of tax dollars for such a war does not make sense, especially when it makes life harder at home.
• ip26 5y ago
  Rather than a "fault" of young Americans I would just point out that they have never experienced a significant militaristic national security threat nor witnessed a great power competition, and old-fashioned tanks-and-bombs conquest has been rare from the first & second world countries for their entire lives.
  • lolinder 5y ago
    The last 70 years of (relative) peace are the exception, not the norm. Remaining ambivalent when a great power makes it clear they are intent on upsetting the balance on which peace hangs is clearly a "fault". It doesn't matter if that fault is the result of ignorance of history, it's still a problem.
  • 01100011 5y ago
    This is an example of the quip 'Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.' The younger generations have grown up in a bubble. The Soviet empire was no more. They were probably too young to remember or not even alive for 9/11. The modern wars the US was involved in could mostly be ignored. The economy was, for the most part, booming and full of distracting consumer goods and excess capacity leading to a full table of innovative goods and services. I'm a late gen X. My wife is a late millennial. I try to relate to her how the world used to be when I was young(less wealth, less choices, more uncertainty) but until you've lived it you can't understand it.
    • whymauri 5y ago
      The current generation is just barely eaking out of a nearly three year long 'once in a century' pandemic with broad impacts on education, employment, and housing costs... and yet, they apparently haven't suffered through enough 'hard times.' OK. Notwithstanding the constant ongoing war in the Middle East and that anyone born before 99' definitely remembers 9/11. I know people who still haven't adequately processed the trauma of the Great Recession -- and they weren't old enough to make the massive gains from the economy, either.
  • specialp 5y ago
• blub 5y ago
  Maybe when life’s good it’s easy to ignore what one’s government is misspending on the military. But when job security’s low, education costs a fortune and the social safety net barely exists, asking why one’s government is sending billions in help to a country at the other end of the world is not at all a crazy question. Now that’s the US, but I’m in the EU and I’m still deeply disappointed at how much money the EU is spending on helping everyone except EU citizens. It’s unacceptable to spend money at such scale when we have areas which are dirt-poor in Europe and many children are severely materially and socially deprived. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Children_at_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion#Key_findings https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
• mytailorisrich 5y ago
  An important aspect to understand is that "democratic nations" fighting together for their ideals is fiction created for the purpose of propaganda and of manufacturung consent. Countries fight for their interests, not for ideals.
• BeFlatXIII 5y ago
  > none of whom can make the transition to so-called green tech in-time to avoid that outcome The Germans brought it upon themselves with their anti-nuclear views.