3 ms·

Worth noting that "peace" here doesn't mean "safe to live in". Instead it includes both internal conflict, but also things like military preparedness and access

by nl 1y ago

Worth noting that "peace" here doesn't mean "safe to live in". Instead it includes both internal conflict, but also things like military preparedness and access to heavy and nuclear weapons. That's why unsafe but underdeveloped nations rank higher than some countries that are often considered domestically safe.

never_inline 1y ago
Logically one should more safer to live in a country which has nukes, no?
- teleforce 1y ago
  There's a very popular saying, "Live by the sword, die by the sword", and it probably applies for those with the nukes.
- nl 1y ago
  Depends on your definition of safe. Both Russia and the US have nukes but have been involved in fairly large scale wars during the last 20 years.
  - never_inline 1y ago
    Sir, I live in a "developing" (that designation is forever) country, where traffic is uncontrollable and haphazard, stray dogs roam under the protection of the government, and a flyover bridge can fall on your head at any point of the road. Hypothetically, I would rather live in a country like the US. I'm sure the machinery of US is good enough to protect its inland citizens when they wage wars on less fortunate ones for whatever reason. Russia is a different matter. I get it.
xg15 1y ago
Yeah, it seems more like a "warmongering index", something like "belligerent intent * amount of military power to realize that intent". At least that would explain how "Palestine" ranks as (slightly) more peaceful than Israel even though it's probably one of the most "unsafe" places on the planet right now. Also Russia has the highest score but has neither the world's most powerful military nor would it be the least safe country to live in. But it likely is the country with the largest army that is currently engaged in open, offensive warfare. It's a useful thing to measure for sure, but if that's what's measured, shouldn't there be more focus on the alliances and power relations between the countries? E.g. all the countries are listed individually here, but some are members of NATO, some of BRICS or SCO, some have bilateral military agreements, etc. How would this deal with "proxy conflicts" and non-state actors? If this had been published a few years before, would the breakaway Donbass republics have counted as countries? (If yes, they might even have counted as relatively "peaceful" as there was no reason for them to attack anything - their existence was the attack) Would Hezbollah be counted towards Lebanon, towards Iran, towards Palestine or not counted at all?

by nl 1y ago

never_inline 1y ago

Logically one should more safer to live in a country which has nukes, no?

teleforce 1y ago
There's a very popular saying, "Live by the sword, die by the sword", and it probably applies for those with the nukes.
nl 1y ago
Depends on your definition of safe. Both Russia and the US have nukes but have been involved in fairly large scale wars during the last 20 years.
- never_inline 1y ago
  Sir, I live in a "developing" (that designation is forever) country, where traffic is uncontrollable and haphazard, stray dogs roam under the protection of the government, and a flyover bridge can fall on your head at any point of the road. Hypothetically, I would rather live in a country like the US. I'm sure the machinery of US is good enough to protect its inland citizens when they wage wars on less fortunate ones for whatever reason. Russia is a different matter. I get it.

xg15 1y ago

Yeah, it seems more like a "warmongering index", something like "belligerent intent * amount of military power to realize that intent". At least that would explain how "Palestine" ranks as (slightly) more peaceful than Israel even though it's probably one of the most "unsafe" places on the planet right now. Also Russia has the highest score but has neither the world's most powerful military nor would it be the least safe country to live in. But it likely is the country with the largest army that is currently engaged in open, offensive warfare. It's a useful thing to measure for sure, but if that's what's measured, shouldn't there be more focus on the alliances and power relations between the countries? E.g. all the countries are listed individually here, but some are members of NATO, some of BRICS or SCO, some have bilateral military agreements, etc. How would this deal with "proxy conflicts" and non-state actors? If this had been published a few years before, would the breakaway Donbass republics have counted as countries? (If yes, they might even have counted as relatively "peaceful" as there was no reason for them to attack anything - their existence was the attack) Would Hezbollah be counted towards Lebanon, towards Iran, towards Palestine or not counted at all?