5 ms·

1945 gave us a way out of this equilibrium. Not the nukes. The Bretton Woods principles. It was not a kumbayah exchange of platitudes. It was an agreement to l

1945 gave us a way out of this equilibrium. Not the nukes. The Bretton Woods principles. It was not a kumbayah exchange of platitudes. It was an agreement to let things be settled in the free market. Want more oil from Nigeria? Offer them more money than the other buyers. Want to fish the waters around Tuvalu? Radio them and offer more money. Want Congolese cobalt? Same idea. This was the brainchild of John Maynard Keynes, not Ayn Rand. It was not a matter of market fetishism. It was based on the sensible idea that the market place is a better way to settle these things than the battlefield, something even a Marxist should be willing to admit. That could have brought us to a world wide peace in 1945, but only the First World went along with this idea. The Second World rallied around endless revolution and war until we get a worker's paradise. And the Third World tried to stay out altogether. (Reminder: by the original definition, Switzerland was in the Third World). We had another chance in 1989. And we blew it. Now we can try again.

TeMPOraL 2y ago
That doesn't make sense. > Want more oil from Nigeria? Offer them more money than the other buyers. How about I offer them some lead to sweeten the deal? As in, take my lower offer or else? > Want to fish the waters around Tuvalu? Radio them and offer more money. Or I'll just go fishing because what ever Tuvalu can do to me? > Want Congolese cobalt? Same idea. The idea works when the players have no better choice than to play by the market rules, win or lose. At small scale, most people figure it's better to lose the deal than be thrown into jail for being extra convincing - but this is only possible because of a legal and enforcement system that's stronger than any individual or group. At larger, international scale, nukes provide a backstop that keeps everyone in check, by keeping total war absurdly expensive for everyone. > It was based on the sensible idea that the market place is a better way to settle these things than the battlefield, something even a Marxist should be willing to admit. The market will tell you that peaceful solution is only better if the war is really expensive. Large power imbalance can easily make war the cheaper option. In general, any solution that requires people to just go along with it is doomed to failure - someone eventually will figure it's in their benefit to defect. Stable solutions are ones that, by design, align with default human behavior. Like MAD. Worth also mentioning that there isn't just "war" and "peace", except in international laws. Soldiers on the ground are just the realization of threats of use of force, which themselves are a last-ditch diplomatic technique. There are other such techniques - sanctions, for example, are just as brutal as war. All that is implied in international negotiations, not invoked explicitly unless parties can't reach a reasonable agreement without threats of violence.
- Nathanba 2y ago
  > In general, any solution that requires people to just go along with it is doomed to failure - someone eventually will figure it's in their benefit to defect. Stable solutions are ones that, by design, align with default human behavior. Like MAD. The problem with MAD is that it is human nature not to assume that your own destruction will occur. Which ends up meaning that these gentlemen's agreements like open skies and free inspections are more necessary than you'd intuitively assume. MAD only works if the human on the other side truly believes that he will be destroyed.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    Right. There's plenty of such non-obvious aspects of MAD. Counterintuitively to any other matter in the military, it's beneficial to you to let your enemy know the extent of your arsenal (or at least the lower bound), and the technologies used - like you explained above. And the corollary to that is, any defense or recon technology that makes it easier for you to defend against enemy nuclear attack, risks causing a war[0]. Same with offense upgrades that make first-strike weapons significantly better. For the balance to work, destruction must be mutually assured, and all sides must believe that. -- [0] - Which is why I'm worried about recent developments in detecting underwater objects by gravity or whatnot. A critical part of MAD is nuclear SLBM-carrying submarines. Those subs, lurking in the darkness, are what guarantees that no matter how fast and effective your first strike is, you'll still get glassed in retaliation. Being able to detect those subs breaks MAD.
- ocschwar 2y ago
  "> Want to fish the waters around Tuvalu? Radio them and offer more money. Or I'll just go fishing because what ever Tuvalu can do to me? " If you can thug your way into Tuvaluan waters, so can anyone. At that point you get into a conventional arms race with everyone else who wants to get into a race for empire in the Pacific. Much cheaper to agree to buy the fishing rights at auction.
  - salawat 2y ago
    ...You're assuming the seller doesn't simply take your money then sell them to the next person. Or that anyone else will care to recognize any claim of exclusivity as a result of your purchase. Or that they're for sale at all. In point of fact, any guarantees against any of the above are typically based on a threat of violence at some level.
pphysch 2y ago
> That could have brought us to a world wide peace in 1945, but only the First World went along with this idea. The Second World rallied around endless revolution and war until we get a worker's paradise. And the Third World tried to stay out altogether. (Reminder: by the original definition, Switzerland was in the Third World). How does your thesis explain the countless violent coups orchestrated and death squads funded by the First World, for example Guatemala 1954?
energy123 2y ago
This is very naive. The reason the "first world" is peaceful is only because of two things - nukes and American hegemony. You need a hegemon for peace. Are you familiar with Japanese history? It was not until unification that the wars stopped. Finally there was a hegemon who brought peace by acting as the ultimate arbiter of power. The same thing happened to the "first world". A dominant hegemon emerged in the form of the US. This hegemon set the rules and made it so nobody needed to worry about their neighbors. A hegemon is the only way you can get peace in an environment that is otherwise anarchic.
ranger207 2y ago
I mean, the fact that we're no longer in the Bretton Woods agreements means they failed as universal solution-finding principles

TeMPOraL 2y ago

That doesn't make sense. > Want more oil from Nigeria? Offer them more money than the other buyers. How about I offer them some lead to sweeten the deal? As in, take my lower offer or else? > Want to fish the waters around Tuvalu? Radio them and offer more money. Or I'll just go fishing because what ever Tuvalu can do to me? > Want Congolese cobalt? Same idea. The idea works when the players have no better choice than to play by the market rules, win or lose. At small scale, most people figure it's better to lose the deal than be thrown into jail for being extra convincing - but this is only possible because of a legal and enforcement system that's stronger than any individual or group. At larger, international scale, nukes provide a backstop that keeps everyone in check, by keeping total war absurdly expensive for everyone. > It was based on the sensible idea that the market place is a better way to settle these things than the battlefield, something even a Marxist should be willing to admit. The market will tell you that peaceful solution is only better if the war is really expensive. Large power imbalance can easily make war the cheaper option. In general, any solution that requires people to just go along with it is doomed to failure - someone eventually will figure it's in their benefit to defect. Stable solutions are ones that, by design, align with default human behavior. Like MAD. Worth also mentioning that there isn't just "war" and "peace", except in international laws. Soldiers on the ground are just the realization of threats of use of force, which themselves are a last-ditch diplomatic technique. There are other such techniques - sanctions, for example, are just as brutal as war. All that is implied in international negotiations, not invoked explicitly unless parties can't reach a reasonable agreement without threats of violence.

Nathanba 2y ago
> In general, any solution that requires people to just go along with it is doomed to failure - someone eventually will figure it's in their benefit to defect. Stable solutions are ones that, by design, align with default human behavior. Like MAD. The problem with MAD is that it is human nature not to assume that your own destruction will occur. Which ends up meaning that these gentlemen's agreements like open skies and free inspections are more necessary than you'd intuitively assume. MAD only works if the human on the other side truly believes that he will be destroyed.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  Right. There's plenty of such non-obvious aspects of MAD. Counterintuitively to any other matter in the military, it's beneficial to you to let your enemy know the extent of your arsenal (or at least the lower bound), and the technologies used - like you explained above. And the corollary to that is, any defense or recon technology that makes it easier for you to defend against enemy nuclear attack, risks causing a war[0]. Same with offense upgrades that make first-strike weapons significantly better. For the balance to work, destruction must be mutually assured, and all sides must believe that. -- [0] - Which is why I'm worried about recent developments in detecting underwater objects by gravity or whatnot. A critical part of MAD is nuclear SLBM-carrying submarines. Those subs, lurking in the darkness, are what guarantees that no matter how fast and effective your first strike is, you'll still get glassed in retaliation. Being able to detect those subs breaks MAD.
ocschwar 2y ago
"> Want to fish the waters around Tuvalu? Radio them and offer more money. Or I'll just go fishing because what ever Tuvalu can do to me? " If you can thug your way into Tuvaluan waters, so can anyone. At that point you get into a conventional arms race with everyone else who wants to get into a race for empire in the Pacific. Much cheaper to agree to buy the fishing rights at auction.
- salawat 2y ago
  ...You're assuming the seller doesn't simply take your money then sell them to the next person. Or that anyone else will care to recognize any claim of exclusivity as a result of your purchase. Or that they're for sale at all. In point of fact, any guarantees against any of the above are typically based on a threat of violence at some level.

pphysch 2y ago

> That could have brought us to a world wide peace in 1945, but only the First World went along with this idea. The Second World rallied around endless revolution and war until we get a worker's paradise. And the Third World tried to stay out altogether. (Reminder: by the original definition, Switzerland was in the Third World). How does your thesis explain the countless violent coups orchestrated and death squads funded by the First World, for example Guatemala 1954?

energy123 2y ago

This is very naive. The reason the "first world" is peaceful is only because of two things - nukes and American hegemony. You need a hegemon for peace. Are you familiar with Japanese history? It was not until unification that the wars stopped. Finally there was a hegemon who brought peace by acting as the ultimate arbiter of power. The same thing happened to the "first world". A dominant hegemon emerged in the form of the US. This hegemon set the rules and made it so nobody needed to worry about their neighbors. A hegemon is the only way you can get peace in an environment that is otherwise anarchic.

ranger207 2y ago

I mean, the fact that we're no longer in the Bretton Woods agreements means they failed as universal solution-finding principles