3 ms·
> Considering that the US was half of global GDP at the end of WW2 and has long been more than happy to sanction anyone who conducts in an (unapproved) war (suc
by avgcorrection 3y ago
> Considering that the US was half of global GDP at the end of WW2 and has long been more than happy to sanction anyone who conducts in an (unapproved) war (such as Russia right now), the modern era of "long peace" fits this theory pretty well.
How often has the US been at not-war in that period?
- newhaus1994 3y agoIR theorists sometimes try to get around this by narrowing the focus to direct great-power wars, which always felt like a cop-out to me (I'm a political scientist) EDIT: although to be clear, the last time I checked, I believe the stats still back up that overall fatalities from military conflict have been at historic lows. I generally prefer what little Hegemonic Stability there may be to the multipolar shitshows of the early 20th and mid-to-late 19th centuries.
- OkayPhysicist 3y agoIt's not a cop-out: there are fundamental qualitative differences between a near-pear conflict, which demands restructuring of a nation's economic activity around supporting the fight, versus the kinds of conflicts the US was involved in post-WWII, where the costs aren't that much different than the steady-state maintenance of our armed forces.
- avgcorrection 3y agoIt’s certainly a cop-out if you use such a segmentation to argue that things are peaceful.
- l33t233372 3y agoPeaceful just has to be a continuum in order for us to make any sense of a theory of peace. Certainly wars between great powers and much smaller countries are more peaceful than near-peer wars.
- avgcorrection 3y ago> Peaceful just has to be a continuum in order for us to make any sense of a theory of peace. Nope. Any reasonable person will accept an argument about how things are peaceful in relative terms. Factoring in everything and not cherry-picking. Demanding perfect peace would be way too idealistic.
- l33t233372 3y agoI think we’re saying the same thing. Are we not?
- avgcorrection 3y agoSure.
- mcguire 3y agoIs it really a cop-out if most people are not involved in a conflict? https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/deaths-in-state-based-conflicts-by-world-region https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/deaths-in-state-based-con...
- avgcorrection 3y agoI can’t… I can’t respond to a completely different claim, can I? Or at least I don’t care to. It’s a cop-out if you cherry-pick what is a “war”. That has nothing to do with your interjection.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago> I believe the stats still back up that overall fatalities from military conflict have been at historic lows. The argument can't be about overall fatalities, but about overall conflicts (and the numbers/proportion of people involved in such). Medical and sanitation technology alone has dramatically decreased the human-life cost of war, at least in proportion to total population.
- rufus_foreman 3y agoIt's going to depend on your definition of not-war, but according to https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-the-time-222-out-of-239-years-since-1776/5565946 https://www.globalresearch.ca/america-has-been-at-war-93-of-..., which counts things like the late 70's/early 80's CIA involvement in Afghanistan as war, it would be 1976, 1977, 1978, 1997, and 2000.