4 ms·

> This type of romanticization of military production is obscene. If you study history even on a superficial basis, you'll find that violence only breaks out i

by maratd 15y ago

> This type of romanticization of military production is obscene. If you study history even on a superficial basis, you'll find that violence only breaks out in asymmetric situations. In other words, only when one side is thoroughly convinced it can kick the other's ass. The best way to prevent war is through trade. The second best is to make sure both sides engage in "obscene" military production and are evenly matched. Weapons are merely tools. If deployed intelligently, they can be used to mitigate any violent impulses and keep the peace.

ilaksh 15y ago
Right, weapons are tools for peace. Of course they are. How ignorant of me. This type of thinking and other similar viewpoints indicate a strong likelihood of another world war. Realistically, it has probably already started in a way. Does anyone own a nuclear-proof bomb shelter? Seriously, I am looking for a place to hide.
- batista 15y ago
  This type of thinking and other similar viewpoints indicate a strong likelihood of another world war. Yeah, but why should they care? A war for a sufficiently advanced country such as US just means some place thousands miles away getting bombed, and a small percentage (compared to the enemy) of professional soldiers getting hurt. In other words, they have no f/n concept of what war actually entails and the toils of a country at war. Well, the budget might be hurt a little, but that's it. Whereas even the budget of the other small country will be totally devastated by a war.
a_a_r_o_n 15y ago
Maybe. But there's a certain amount of risk in two sides pointing loaded guns at each others' heads. Let's hope trade succeeds.
trevelyan 15y ago
I was under the impression that most prolonged conflicts prior to the 20th century involved well-matched opponents: Greek city states, Rome versus Carthage (except possibly the third Carthaginian war), the Three Kingdoms period in China, and practically all of European history post 1648. Then in the twentieth century alone we start with WWI and WWII (the German military did not view the war against the Soviet Union as winnable), and end up with a great number of proxy wars in the mid-East and Asia. The trade argument is strange considering that the world economy was more tightly integrated in 1914 than it is today. It is probably correct that nuclear weapons exert something of a stabilizing force, although it is disconcerting that the nash equilibrium for games of mutual-assured destruction requires random detonation by both parties in order to demonstrate irrationality and establish deterrence.
jleader 15y ago
I had the impression that wars mostly break out when each side thinks they have the upper hand. While there are some instances of suicidal attacks by societies that have been backed in to a corner, I would expect that in most cases, the obvious loser of a potential conflict will try to find some less costly way out. I think I first encountered this idea in an essay about Lewis Fry Richardson's research, but I can't find the citation. His idea was that by analyzing the theory of conflict, he hoped to make prediction of the eventual winner more reliable, reducing the occurrence of mis-matched estimates leading to war.
batista 15y ago
The best way to prevent war is through trade. Actually trade means opposed interests, which is the fastest way to get into a war. There's a wishful thinking picture by some economists that trade is always beneficial to all parties involved, and countries that trade cannot go to war, bla, bla. The funny thing is, those theories were at their peak around 1900 too, "surely global trade as it is now will end wars etc" and we know what followed then. Actually, weren't Afghanistan and Iraq countries that traded oil with most of the countries that bombed them? Then, one thinks, why pay X for oil, and be subject to the seller's demands and/or willingness to prefer my over other buyers, when I can just get there and just take it?
- miked 15y ago
  > Actually trade means opposed interests, which is the fastest way to get into a war. Actually, trade means a joined interest in making an exchange, since if both sides didn't see the exchange as in their own best interest they wouldn't be making the trade. Moreover, trading relationships are not usually based on one-off trades. Which means that you'll want to trade again. Which means that getting into a war with the other party would be a bad idea. All this reminds me of a quote by the late philosopher Robert Nozick, who defined "Marxist exploitation" as "the exploitation, by Marxists, of people's ignorance of economics."
  - batista 15y ago
    Actually, trade means a joined interest in making an exchange, since if both sides didn't see the exchange as in their own best interest they wouldn't be making the trade. Actually, no. Countries are forced to trade all the time, despite their best interests. From the Opium Wars ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars ) to NAFTA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agree... ). Ask a citizen of any "banana republic" about it. Moreover, trading relationships are not usually based on one-off trades. Which means that you'll want to trade again. Which means that getting into a war with the other party would be a bad idea. In this naive worldview there are only two parties that trade. It also presumes, "getting into a war" means you don't get to trade anymore. Like, how Japan and Germany do not trade with the US after WWII, right? The only thing it means is that you get to dictate the terms for subsequent trading. But the worst about this view is that it also presumes this traded material comes out of thin air: ie. it forgets that trade can lead to war for control of natural resources, trade routes, and, of course, markets. Here's a funny story: = = = The Great Illusion is a book by Norman Angell, first published in Britain in 1909 and republished in 1910 and subsequently in various enlarged and revised editions under the title The Great Illusion. (The "Great Illusion" of the title was the belief that there would soon be another major and destructive European war.) According to John Keegan "Europe in the summer of 1914 enjoyed a peaceful productivity so dependent on international exchange and co-operation that a belief in the impossibility of a general war seemed the most conventional of wisdoms. In 1910 an analysis of prevailing economic interdependence, The Great Illusion, had become a best-seller; its author Norman Angell had demonstrated, to the satisfaction of almost all informed opinion, that the disruption of international credit inevitably to be caused by war would either deter its outbreak or bring it speedily to an end." = = = We know how that one ended. All this reminds me of a quote by the late philosopher Robert Nozick, who defined "Marxist exploitation" as "the exploitation, by Marxists, of people's ignorance of economics."* Yeah, except most marxists have also studied thoroughly traditional and liberal economists of their time, from Ricardo and Smith to Hayek and Friedman. Including Marx himself, who was a walking encyclopedia of political economy. Criticizing something does not mean you are ignorant about it. While not a Marxist, I'm with the camp that calls the entrenched political economy a "dismal science", 90% ideology and 10% applied mathematics.

by maratd 15y ago

ilaksh 15y ago

Right, weapons are tools for peace. Of course they are. How ignorant of me. This type of thinking and other similar viewpoints indicate a strong likelihood of another world war. Realistically, it has probably already started in a way. Does anyone own a nuclear-proof bomb shelter? Seriously, I am looking for a place to hide.

batista 15y ago
This type of thinking and other similar viewpoints indicate a strong likelihood of another world war. Yeah, but why should they care? A war for a sufficiently advanced country such as US just means some place thousands miles away getting bombed, and a small percentage (compared to the enemy) of professional soldiers getting hurt. In other words, they have no f/n concept of what war actually entails and the toils of a country at war. Well, the budget might be hurt a little, but that's it. Whereas even the budget of the other small country will be totally devastated by a war.

a_a_r_o_n 15y ago

Maybe. But there's a certain amount of risk in two sides pointing loaded guns at each others' heads. Let's hope trade succeeds.

trevelyan 15y ago

I was under the impression that most prolonged conflicts prior to the 20th century involved well-matched opponents: Greek city states, Rome versus Carthage (except possibly the third Carthaginian war), the Three Kingdoms period in China, and practically all of European history post 1648. Then in the twentieth century alone we start with WWI and WWII (the German military did not view the war against the Soviet Union as winnable), and end up with a great number of proxy wars in the mid-East and Asia. The trade argument is strange considering that the world economy was more tightly integrated in 1914 than it is today. It is probably correct that nuclear weapons exert something of a stabilizing force, although it is disconcerting that the nash equilibrium for games of mutual-assured destruction requires random detonation by both parties in order to demonstrate irrationality and establish deterrence.

jleader 15y ago

I had the impression that wars mostly break out when each side thinks they have the upper hand. While there are some instances of suicidal attacks by societies that have been backed in to a corner, I would expect that in most cases, the obvious loser of a potential conflict will try to find some less costly way out. I think I first encountered this idea in an essay about Lewis Fry Richardson's research, but I can't find the citation. His idea was that by analyzing the theory of conflict, he hoped to make prediction of the eventual winner more reliable, reducing the occurrence of mis-matched estimates leading to war.

batista 15y ago

The best way to prevent war is through trade. Actually trade means opposed interests, which is the fastest way to get into a war. There's a wishful thinking picture by some economists that trade is always beneficial to all parties involved, and countries that trade cannot go to war, bla, bla. The funny thing is, those theories were at their peak around 1900 too, "surely global trade as it is now will end wars etc" and we know what followed then. Actually, weren't Afghanistan and Iraq countries that traded oil with most of the countries that bombed them? Then, one thinks, why pay X for oil, and be subject to the seller's demands and/or willingness to prefer my over other buyers, when I can just get there and just take it?

miked 15y ago
> Actually trade means opposed interests, which is the fastest way to get into a war. Actually, trade means a joined interest in making an exchange, since if both sides didn't see the exchange as in their own best interest they wouldn't be making the trade. Moreover, trading relationships are not usually based on one-off trades. Which means that you'll want to trade again. Which means that getting into a war with the other party would be a bad idea. All this reminds me of a quote by the late philosopher Robert Nozick, who defined "Marxist exploitation" as "the exploitation, by Marxists, of people's ignorance of economics."
- batista 15y ago
  Actually, trade means a joined interest in making an exchange, since if both sides didn't see the exchange as in their own best interest they wouldn't be making the trade. Actually, no. Countries are forced to trade all the time, despite their best interests. From the Opium Wars ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars ) to NAFTA ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agree... ). Ask a citizen of any "banana republic" about it. Moreover, trading relationships are not usually based on one-off trades. Which means that you'll want to trade again. Which means that getting into a war with the other party would be a bad idea. In this naive worldview there are only two parties that trade. It also presumes, "getting into a war" means you don't get to trade anymore. Like, how Japan and Germany do not trade with the US after WWII, right? The only thing it means is that you get to dictate the terms for subsequent trading. But the worst about this view is that it also presumes this traded material comes out of thin air: ie. it forgets that trade can lead to war for control of natural resources, trade routes, and, of course, markets. Here's a funny story: = = = The Great Illusion is a book by Norman Angell, first published in Britain in 1909 and republished in 1910 and subsequently in various enlarged and revised editions under the title The Great Illusion. (The "Great Illusion" of the title was the belief that there would soon be another major and destructive European war.) According to John Keegan "Europe in the summer of 1914 enjoyed a peaceful productivity so dependent on international exchange and co-operation that a belief in the impossibility of a general war seemed the most conventional of wisdoms. In 1910 an analysis of prevailing economic interdependence, The Great Illusion, had become a best-seller; its author Norman Angell had demonstrated, to the satisfaction of almost all informed opinion, that the disruption of international credit inevitably to be caused by war would either deter its outbreak or bring it speedily to an end." = = = We know how that one ended. All this reminds me of a quote by the late philosopher Robert Nozick, who defined "Marxist exploitation" as "the exploitation, by Marxists, of people's ignorance of economics."* Yeah, except most marxists have also studied thoroughly traditional and liberal economists of their time, from Ricardo and Smith to Hayek and Friedman. Including Marx himself, who was a walking encyclopedia of political economy. Criticizing something does not mean you are ignorant about it. While not a Marxist, I'm with the camp that calls the entrenched political economy a "dismal science", 90% ideology and 10% applied mathematics.