5 ms·

It's interesting that you see this as an incentive to avoid wars. A large proportion of wars have been caused by resource interdependence (invasions to secure e

It's interesting that you see this as an incentive to avoid wars. A large proportion of wars have been caused by resource interdependence (invasions to secure external resources that are relied heavily upon), not avoided by it.

adrianN 4y ago
It seems hard to me to quantify the number of wars prevented by any measure.
- dijit 4y ago
  Interdependence of resources was the primary reason the EEC (later forming the EU) was created. The idea was to make the idea of going to war unthinkable because we relied on each other, and it's quite easily to calculate the deficit in deaths in Europe after that. There are statistics saying it was extremely effective; Even when you account for Russian conflict against the Chechen's and the Serbian/Albanian conflict in Kosovo.. https://www.statista.com/chart/15458/the-estimated-number-of-violent-war-related-deaths-in-europe/ https://www.statista.com/chart/15458/the-estimated-number-of...
zarzavat 4y ago
It’s meta-stable. War is very expensive. Resource interdependence is usually a disincentive to war. However when resources are either extremely valuable or essential, usually either oil or water, then it can overcome the disincentive and become an incentive to conflict.
- lucideer 4y ago
  > War is very expensive. Unless you're referring to the obvious horrific cost to human lives, war isn't "expensive" in any real sense in terms of national finance. War is profitable: any money "spent" goes somewhere. Many wars have lifted countries from recession. The only slight argument one could make for the expense of war is military consumption of fossil fuels (but we're already talking about control of that resource, so that's self-fulfilling).
  - imtringued 4y ago
    War is profitable because you are taking what someone else has built or what was already there and claiming it as your own. The costs are borne by the losers of the war. Either through loss of life or the loss of the seized capital.
  - FeepingCreature 4y ago
    Couldn't you just give people money and avoid the part where you set part of the economic output on fire? I think the fact that wars can be economically beneficial is a blazing indictment of our economic competency.
    - cuteboy19 4y ago
      This paradox was resolved by economist Bastiat in 1850 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
      - FeepingCreature 4y ago
        Well, it's not really a fallacy if you account for political impediments to just giving people money. In other words, war can compensate for a "demand shortage," notwithstanding that in a sensibly run economy, such a thing should never be expected to exist.
        eru 4y ago
        It's pretty easy to print money.. (Yet, sometimes like around 2008 countries still fail.)
        marcosdumay 4y ago
        What is not easy is getting that money on the hands of the people, instead of a few rich folks.
hnbad 4y ago
Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources. Sure, if you simplify things enough you could argue that all wars are about resource interdependence because attacking someone for cutting you off from resources or for withholding your resources is also "about resource interdependence" and even civil wars are ultimately about unequal access to resources. But at that point you could say a peasant revolt is about "resource interdependence" because the lords own the land and the peasants provide them the food. I don't think "resource interdependence" is the right framing. Colonialism was essentially "resource interdependence" but that is clearly a different dynamic than e.g. the European Economic Area (or EFTA). Realistically, it's probably more about a mix of defensive pacts (essentially military MAD), economic interdependence (essentially economic MAD) and a somewhat level power dynamic (limiting the potential for exploitation).
- lucideer 4y ago
  I've deleted my last line about "most wars" as it's causing people to fixate on that word and ignore the substantive point of the comment: > Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources. What's the difference beyond technicalities? Resource control -vs- resource capture, both are issues of resource interdependence. External resource control isn't a priority in a system of resource independence.
  - hnbad 4y ago
    The difference isn't between control or capture. The difference is between it being a thing that is necessary in war and it being the motivation behind that war. If you cut off my access to drinking water by blocking the river that runs through both of our countries you could call my dependence on your exported bottled water "interdependence" if we already have a trade relationship, but if I declare war on you over that it's not "because of interdependence" but "because you were trying to take advantage of me". Interdependence might actually make me less likely to declare war because I have to contrast how much you "stealing my water" hurts me with how much being able to trade with you benefits me and how waging war will affect those things.
- 4y ago

adrianN 4y ago

It seems hard to me to quantify the number of wars prevented by any measure.

dijit 4y ago
Interdependence of resources was the primary reason the EEC (later forming the EU) was created. The idea was to make the idea of going to war unthinkable because we relied on each other, and it's quite easily to calculate the deficit in deaths in Europe after that. There are statistics saying it was extremely effective; Even when you account for Russian conflict against the Chechen's and the Serbian/Albanian conflict in Kosovo.. https://www.statista.com/chart/15458/the-estimated-number-of-violent-war-related-deaths-in-europe/ https://www.statista.com/chart/15458/the-estimated-number-of...

zarzavat 4y ago

It’s meta-stable. War is very expensive. Resource interdependence is usually a disincentive to war. However when resources are either extremely valuable or essential, usually either oil or water, then it can overcome the disincentive and become an incentive to conflict.

lucideer 4y ago
> War is very expensive. Unless you're referring to the obvious horrific cost to human lives, war isn't "expensive" in any real sense in terms of national finance. War is profitable: any money "spent" goes somewhere. Many wars have lifted countries from recession. The only slight argument one could make for the expense of war is military consumption of fossil fuels (but we're already talking about control of that resource, so that's self-fulfilling).
- imtringued 4y ago
  War is profitable because you are taking what someone else has built or what was already there and claiming it as your own. The costs are borne by the losers of the war. Either through loss of life or the loss of the seized capital.
- FeepingCreature 4y ago
  Couldn't you just give people money and avoid the part where you set part of the economic output on fire? I think the fact that wars can be economically beneficial is a blazing indictment of our economic competency.
  - cuteboy19 4y ago
    This paradox was resolved by economist Bastiat in 1850 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
    - FeepingCreature 4y ago
      Well, it's not really a fallacy if you account for political impediments to just giving people money. In other words, war can compensate for a "demand shortage," notwithstanding that in a sensibly run economy, such a thing should never be expected to exist.
      - eru 4y ago
        It's pretty easy to print money.. (Yet, sometimes like around 2008 countries still fail.)
        marcosdumay 4y ago
        What is not easy is getting that money on the hands of the people, instead of a few rich folks.

hnbad 4y ago

Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources. Sure, if you simplify things enough you could argue that all wars are about resource interdependence because attacking someone for cutting you off from resources or for withholding your resources is also "about resource interdependence" and even civil wars are ultimately about unequal access to resources. But at that point you could say a peasant revolt is about "resource interdependence" because the lords own the land and the peasants provide them the food. I don't think "resource interdependence" is the right framing. Colonialism was essentially "resource interdependence" but that is clearly a different dynamic than e.g. the European Economic Area (or EFTA). Realistically, it's probably more about a mix of defensive pacts (essentially military MAD), economic interdependence (essentially economic MAD) and a somewhat level power dynamic (limiting the potential for exploitation).

lucideer 4y ago
I've deleted my last line about "most wars" as it's causing people to fixate on that word and ignore the substantive point of the comment: > Most wars involve resource control. That doesn't mean most wars are about capturing resources. What's the difference beyond technicalities? Resource control -vs- resource capture, both are issues of resource interdependence. External resource control isn't a priority in a system of resource independence.
- hnbad 4y ago
  The difference isn't between control or capture. The difference is between it being a thing that is necessary in war and it being the motivation behind that war. If you cut off my access to drinking water by blocking the river that runs through both of our countries you could call my dependence on your exported bottled water "interdependence" if we already have a trade relationship, but if I declare war on you over that it's not "because of interdependence" but "because you were trying to take advantage of me". Interdependence might actually make me less likely to declare war because I have to contrast how much you "stealing my water" hurts me with how much being able to trade with you benefits me and how waging war will affect those things.
4y ago