3 ms·

I found that line of thought, peace through war or rather weapons, very weak when I first encountered it in a school's classroom in the 80s. I find it untrue.

I found that line of thought, peace through war or rather weapons, very weak when I first encountered it in a school's classroom in the 80s. I find it untrue. Real peace can only be without weapons. I don't want to go back to this same old rhetoric I grew up with and which I was happy to have ended, until 9/11 and the US making a 180° turn, because now they had no one to counter their ambitions to dominate the world, which doesn't validate the rhetoric, because obviously only 1 side laid down their weapons. The US saw this as "we won, now we can act unrestricted". But Russia didn't lose. They willingly stopped the cold war. That is very important in understanding the current aggression and narrative.

godelski 4y ago
I found the argument weak as well when I first encountered it. But as I got older I realized something important into the game theory. If all but one power had no weapons then this means that if that singular power decides to be aggressive, then they will have the ability to take from the rest. I then realized that weapons are fairly ubiquitous in that neither can you have defensive systems that can't be used offensively nor can you have a lot of engineering without also having weapons related technologies. This to me doesn't mean we need a military industrial complex, but it does mean, to me, that we need some minimal military. It does also mean that as citizens we should protest needless violence by our countries. (And if the US is going to act as world police regardless, we need to ensure that situations we engage in are moral. E.g. you could support Ukraine's fight for freedom but not the war in Iraq). The real world is extremely complex. I'd love to live in a world without weapons, but I don't see how such a thing is even possible, from multiple angles. If that's not possible, then it is about how to minimize fighting and lives lost. After all, that is why we'd want no weapons. That solution space is rather complex and likely non-convex.

godelski 4y ago

I found the argument weak as well when I first encountered it. But as I got older I realized something important into the game theory. If all but one power had no weapons then this means that if that singular power decides to be aggressive, then they will have the ability to take from the rest. I then realized that weapons are fairly ubiquitous in that neither can you have defensive systems that can't be used offensively nor can you have a lot of engineering without also having weapons related technologies. This to me doesn't mean we need a military industrial complex, but it does mean, to me, that we need some minimal military. It does also mean that as citizens we should protest needless violence by our countries. (And if the US is going to act as world police regardless, we need to ensure that situations we engage in are moral. E.g. you could support Ukraine's fight for freedom but not the war in Iraq). The real world is extremely complex. I'd love to live in a world without weapons, but I don't see how such a thing is even possible, from multiple angles. If that's not possible, then it is about how to minimize fighting and lives lost. After all, that is why we'd want no weapons. That solution space is rather complex and likely non-convex.