10 ms·

> I’ve discussed this before a few times, but I think Azar Gat is probably right to suggest that the long peace is itself a consequence of the changing incentiv

> I’ve discussed this before a few times, but I think Azar Gat is probably right to suggest that the long peace is itself a consequence of the changing incentives created by the industrial revolution and to an even greater extent, by nuclear weapons. Prior to the industrial revolution, war was the best way to get rich (if you won) because land and conquered subjects were so much more valuable than any kind of capital investment (infrastructure, manufacture, tools, etc.) that could have been developed with the same resources. The industrial revolution changes this, both by making war a lot more destructive (thus lowering returns to successful warfare)1 while at the same time massively raising returns to capital investment in things like infrastructure, factories and tractors. It suddenly made more sense, if you coveted your neighbors resources, to build more factories and buy those resources than to try to seize them by force. Nuclear weapons in turn took this same effect and ratcheted it up even further, by effectively making the cost of total war infinite. I’m getting such Beltway Think Tank vibes for some reason.

jameshart 3y ago
Well sure - this is just fairly conventional international relations theory. Trying to apply systems thinking to the question of ‘why conflict’ is basically the entire academic discipline of international politics and strategic studies. This particular take is basically a standard neorealist perspective on how to explain the impact of globalization in reducing conflict. Basically allowing that trade changes the playing field, without allowing that states might be anything other than selfish entities, or that there might be any relevant entities to consider in international affairs (like nonstate actors, cultural power, etc). Other schools of IR theory take different perspectives, but neorealism is basically the foundational view of western foreign policy.
safety1st 3y ago
Honestly another thing I didn't like about this peace was the "Russian army is weak so maybe lots of other armies are weak" idea. That's the last thing we need the chickenhawks running DC to believe
- noduerme 3y ago
  Well, it's manifestly false, and I don't think there's much danger of anyone in DC believing it.
- WeylandYutani 3y ago
  America can win any war but lose the peace. The appetite for nation building has evaporated in the US. Iraq and Afghanistan stripped the hubris.
noduerme 3y ago
If the think tanks ran everything there would be no war at all, just a race for extracting minerals, creating products people didn't need and finding markets for them, and like, skinning otters and bludgeoning defenseless animals. How bad is that really compared to all-out nuclear war?
- avgcorrection 3y ago
  Why? Because they just want to maximize profits which is inherently peaceful because <repeat points from the article>? I don’t know what assumptions you’re using.
  - noduerme 3y ago
    It's not inherently peaceful, but it's cautious. Invading Iraq or trying to create democracy in Libya or getting Finland to join NATO is, basically, some attempt to create stability at a distance - as misguided and chaotic as the results may be. Engaging in actual, direct war the way Putin has would be unthinkable; it would be like taking your pants off at a dinner party. [edit] I should clarify that the invading Iraq part of the above statement was meant as a bit of jest; obviously that was precisely what Putin has done. [edit #2] the article's flaw isn't that it (rightly) locates the source of both peace and war in the profit-making capacities of companies and governments; the flaw is in its fanciful belief (and the subject of the piece) that this has somehow led to a neutered military situation of which the present Russian losses are proof. They are no proof, and the situation is more dangerous and ambiguous than ever, partially as a result of the ongoing neutering of one of the three important millitaries in the world at the hands of the most powerful alliance. Wish that it were not so, but this destabilizes what had up until now been a grouping that was mostly driven by profit.
    - avgcorrection 3y ago
      > I should clarify that the invading Iraq part of the above statement was meant as a bit of jest; obviously that was precisely what Putin has done. But Libya was not in jest.

jameshart 3y ago

Well sure - this is just fairly conventional international relations theory. Trying to apply systems thinking to the question of ‘why conflict’ is basically the entire academic discipline of international politics and strategic studies. This particular take is basically a standard neorealist perspective on how to explain the impact of globalization in reducing conflict. Basically allowing that trade changes the playing field, without allowing that states might be anything other than selfish entities, or that there might be any relevant entities to consider in international affairs (like nonstate actors, cultural power, etc). Other schools of IR theory take different perspectives, but neorealism is basically the foundational view of western foreign policy.

safety1st 3y ago

Honestly another thing I didn't like about this peace was the "Russian army is weak so maybe lots of other armies are weak" idea. That's the last thing we need the chickenhawks running DC to believe

noduerme 3y ago
Well, it's manifestly false, and I don't think there's much danger of anyone in DC believing it.
WeylandYutani 3y ago
America can win any war but lose the peace. The appetite for nation building has evaporated in the US. Iraq and Afghanistan stripped the hubris.

noduerme 3y ago

If the think tanks ran everything there would be no war at all, just a race for extracting minerals, creating products people didn't need and finding markets for them, and like, skinning otters and bludgeoning defenseless animals. How bad is that really compared to all-out nuclear war?

avgcorrection 3y ago
Why? Because they just want to maximize profits which is inherently peaceful because <repeat points from the article>? I don’t know what assumptions you’re using.
- noduerme 3y ago
  It's not inherently peaceful, but it's cautious. Invading Iraq or trying to create democracy in Libya or getting Finland to join NATO is, basically, some attempt to create stability at a distance - as misguided and chaotic as the results may be. Engaging in actual, direct war the way Putin has would be unthinkable; it would be like taking your pants off at a dinner party. [edit] I should clarify that the invading Iraq part of the above statement was meant as a bit of jest; obviously that was precisely what Putin has done. [edit #2] the article's flaw isn't that it (rightly) locates the source of both peace and war in the profit-making capacities of companies and governments; the flaw is in its fanciful belief (and the subject of the piece) that this has somehow led to a neutered military situation of which the present Russian losses are proof. They are no proof, and the situation is more dangerous and ambiguous than ever, partially as a result of the ongoing neutering of one of the three important millitaries in the world at the hands of the most powerful alliance. Wish that it were not so, but this destabilizes what had up until now been a grouping that was mostly driven by profit.
  - avgcorrection 3y ago
    > I should clarify that the invading Iraq part of the above statement was meant as a bit of jest; obviously that was precisely what Putin has done. But Libya was not in jest.