6 ms·

That theory ignores the Cold War, which hinged on M.A.D.

andsoitis 3y ago
Why do you say that?
jdlshore 3y ago
In what way? The fundamental argument is that war is less profitable than economic competition, which is exactly how the Cold War progressed, and why the US won. Edit: My mistake, I thought you were talking about Deveraux’s theory, but it looks like you were talking about the Economic Stability Theory OP mentioned.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  > The fundamental argument is that war is less profitable than economic competition, which is exactly how the Cold War progressed, and why the US won. So for countries that lose the economic competition, might war be a 'better' option?
  - pas 3y ago
    if they can decisively finish it fast and keep the spoils. post-WW2 this was only true for the superpowers. and only some of the times. (eg. see the failures in Afghanistan, see how it's impossible to finish a war quickly if there are sufficiently powerful allies of the target willing to sponsor the insurgency/proxy war, etc.)
  - rocqua 3y ago
    It could be a 'high variance, low expected value' play. Like pulling the goaly when you are behind. That kind of strategy only makes sense if 'losing by a little' and 'losing by a lot' are equally unacceptable. That doesn't tend to be how economic competition between countries works I think?
safety1st 3y ago
I mean the operative word in "Cold War" is Cold. There was a lot of arms buildup and posturing, and some proxy wars in smaller or less developed countries, but no wars waged directly between the great powers. The Cold War was part of the long peace that HST predicted. I think you could argue that America's supremacy was never seriously contested by the USSR - sure the USSR had nukes, but the US had plenty of those as well, it had the better economy, overwhelmingly better navy etc. There were more chips on the strategic board than MAD and most of them belonged to the US.
- sdenton4 3y ago
  So Vietnam just doesn't count? It wasn't a small way by any metric that matters - it just happened to not be on the home soil of the us or ussr.
  - safety1st 3y ago
    Count towards what? The article refers to the "long peace" since WW2 which included the Cold War. This is a well known concept, there's lots of evidence to support it being real, it's a central concept in the field of international relations, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Peace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Peace Vietnam doesn't invalidate the long peace, no. At least I'm not aware of any academic arguments to that effect, they may exist, I haven't studied this stuff since college.
  - sophacles 3y ago
    Ignoring the strictly subjective "matters" bit - what metrics make it medium or large?
  - rocqua 3y ago
    It counts, but it isn't enough to make the period after ww2 be less peaceful than the period before.
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  In the first half of the Cold War, the US's economic superiority was far from evidently obvious. The USSR's economy was growing extremely quickly, and S curves are hard to distinguish from exponential growth. With the benefit of hindsight you're probably right, but at the time I think the posturing / arms race was the rational move for both countries.

Why do you say that?

In what way? The fundamental argument is that war is less profitable than economic competition, which is exactly how the Cold War progressed, and why the US won. Edit: My mistake, I thought you were talking about Deveraux’s theory, but it looks like you were talking about the Economic Stability Theory OP mentioned.

anonymouskimmer 3y ago
> The fundamental argument is that war is less profitable than economic competition, which is exactly how the Cold War progressed, and why the US won. So for countries that lose the economic competition, might war be a 'better' option?
- pas 3y ago
  if they can decisively finish it fast and keep the spoils. post-WW2 this was only true for the superpowers. and only some of the times. (eg. see the failures in Afghanistan, see how it's impossible to finish a war quickly if there are sufficiently powerful allies of the target willing to sponsor the insurgency/proxy war, etc.)
- rocqua 3y ago
  It could be a 'high variance, low expected value' play. Like pulling the goaly when you are behind. That kind of strategy only makes sense if 'losing by a little' and 'losing by a lot' are equally unacceptable. That doesn't tend to be how economic competition between countries works I think?

safety1st 3y ago

I mean the operative word in "Cold War" is Cold. There was a lot of arms buildup and posturing, and some proxy wars in smaller or less developed countries, but no wars waged directly between the great powers. The Cold War was part of the long peace that HST predicted. I think you could argue that America's supremacy was never seriously contested by the USSR - sure the USSR had nukes, but the US had plenty of those as well, it had the better economy, overwhelmingly better navy etc. There were more chips on the strategic board than MAD and most of them belonged to the US.

sdenton4 3y ago
So Vietnam just doesn't count? It wasn't a small way by any metric that matters - it just happened to not be on the home soil of the us or ussr.
- safety1st 3y ago
  Count towards what? The article refers to the "long peace" since WW2 which included the Cold War. This is a well known concept, there's lots of evidence to support it being real, it's a central concept in the field of international relations, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Peace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Peace Vietnam doesn't invalidate the long peace, no. At least I'm not aware of any academic arguments to that effect, they may exist, I haven't studied this stuff since college.
- sophacles 3y ago
  Ignoring the strictly subjective "matters" bit - what metrics make it medium or large?
- rocqua 3y ago
  It counts, but it isn't enough to make the period after ww2 be less peaceful than the period before.
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
In the first half of the Cold War, the US's economic superiority was far from evidently obvious. The USSR's economy was growing extremely quickly, and S curves are hard to distinguish from exponential growth. With the benefit of hindsight you're probably right, but at the time I think the posturing / arms race was the rational move for both countries.