5 ms·

Everyone involved in a war is a loser. It really shows how immature humanity is that we still start new wars.

by clnq 4y ago

throwayyy479087 4y ago
This is reductionist. The Pax Americana has been maintained by an overwhelming capability for war by the USA. You need to punish in countries that violate international norms. Russia has been truly chucklefucked by this war, and the Norks, Iranians, etc. are going to be significantly more wary of engaging in new wars going forward. That is how peace is actually maintained.
- clnq 4y ago
  Capacity for war is not the same as starting wars. Pax Americana is a result of defensive capacity for war. The Middle East situation is a result of starting wars. I have a lot more criticism for the latter than the former.
bell-cot 4y ago
Yes and no. For most of history, conquest of pre-industrial agrarian societies was generally an excellent idea...politically and economically, that is. See any good history of (say) the economics of the Roman Empire. Or the British Empire. That's part of why WWI was so hellishly destructive for Europe - national leaders, military planners, educated elites, etc. really didn't get that modern(-ish) industrialized warfare was profoundly different from "the good old days", and they made endless bad decisions based on obsolete "wisdom".
- clnq 4y ago
  Historically, yes and no. I agree. But recent wars look much more like All Quiet on the Western Front than conquests of the Roman Empire.
- jcranmer 4y ago
  The deadliest war before WW1 was the Napoleonic Wars (which essentially set up the then-existing European system), and before that, the Thirty Years' War and similar wars of religion were incredibly destructive. When were "the good old days" you were referring to?
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    For the winners (recall that the ruling classes were rather indifferent to the deaths of large numbers of the less-well-born) many of those wars turned out pretty well. In "let's play Prisoner's Dilemma" terms, the payoff matrix for "Go to War?" was, for the ruling classes, far more favorable back then. (Vs. for modern industrialized warfare.) Add the Mongol Empire and Russian Empire to my "war & conquest worked out pretty well for 'em" list.
    - bell-cot 4y ago
      Clarification - by "Russian Empire" here, I mean the old Empire - say, from the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) up until the Crimean War (~1855). The latter was against several modern-ish, getting-industrialized major powers. Yes, plenty of parallels can be drawn between the Crimean War and the current Russian "special military operation" in Ukraine. The former ended with the Treaty of Paris on March 30, 1856 - which was a very clear Russian defeat.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
You only need a segment of humanity to be immature for a war to start. To be specific, don't blame Ukraine for this war, or humanity in general. Blame Russia, and specifically Putin. > Everyone involved in a war is a loser. I agree with you on that point.
yrgulation 4y ago
It was precisely the opposite that started this war - the inhumanity of some leaders and the people that support it.
- clnq 4y ago
  The apeish immaturity of decision-makers in power that really do too much misleading for being called leaders. Neither Ukraine, nor Russia, nor humanity as a whole benefits from Russia's actions. Even Putin's legacy doesn't. It's truly a loser's race to the bottom. But you know, this is still regretfully humanity's doing.

Everyone involved in a war is a loser. It really shows how immature humanity is that we still start new wars.

by clnq 4y ago

Everyone involved in a war is a loser. It really shows how immature humanity is that we still start new wars.

This is reductionist. The Pax Americana has been maintained by an overwhelming capability for war by the USA. You need to punish in countries that violate international norms. Russia has been truly chucklefucked by this war, and the Norks, Iranians, etc. are going to be significantly more wary of engaging in new wars going forward. That is how peace is actually maintained.

clnq 4y ago
Capacity for war is not the same as starting wars. Pax Americana is a result of defensive capacity for war. The Middle East situation is a result of starting wars. I have a lot more criticism for the latter than the former.

bell-cot 4y ago

Yes and no. For most of history, conquest of pre-industrial agrarian societies was generally an excellent idea...politically and economically, that is. See any good history of (say) the economics of the Roman Empire. Or the British Empire. That's part of why WWI was so hellishly destructive for Europe - national leaders, military planners, educated elites, etc. really didn't get that modern(-ish) industrialized warfare was profoundly different from "the good old days", and they made endless bad decisions based on obsolete "wisdom".

clnq 4y ago
Historically, yes and no. I agree. But recent wars look much more like All Quiet on the Western Front than conquests of the Roman Empire.
jcranmer 4y ago
The deadliest war before WW1 was the Napoleonic Wars (which essentially set up the then-existing European system), and before that, the Thirty Years' War and similar wars of religion were incredibly destructive. When were "the good old days" you were referring to?
- bell-cot 4y ago
  For the winners (recall that the ruling classes were rather indifferent to the deaths of large numbers of the less-well-born) many of those wars turned out pretty well. In "let's play Prisoner's Dilemma" terms, the payoff matrix for "Go to War?" was, for the ruling classes, far more favorable back then. (Vs. for modern industrialized warfare.) Add the Mongol Empire and Russian Empire to my "war & conquest worked out pretty well for 'em" list.
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    Clarification - by "Russian Empire" here, I mean the old Empire - say, from the Battle of Kulikovo (1380) up until the Crimean War (~1855). The latter was against several modern-ish, getting-industrialized major powers. Yes, plenty of parallels can be drawn between the Crimean War and the current Russian "special military operation" in Ukraine. The former ended with the Treaty of Paris on March 30, 1856 - which was a very clear Russian defeat.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

You only need a segment of humanity to be immature for a war to start. To be specific, don't blame Ukraine for this war, or humanity in general. Blame Russia, and specifically Putin. > Everyone involved in a war is a loser. I agree with you on that point.

yrgulation 4y ago

It was precisely the opposite that started this war - the inhumanity of some leaders and the people that support it.

clnq 4y ago
The apeish immaturity of decision-makers in power that really do too much misleading for being called leaders. Neither Ukraine, nor Russia, nor humanity as a whole benefits from Russia's actions. Even Putin's legacy doesn't. It's truly a loser's race to the bottom. But you know, this is still regretfully humanity's doing.