3 ms·
> but carrying a huge stick seems to be the most effective way to reduce human death and suffering from armed conflict. Citation needed. I believe there's at l
by gizzlon 8mo ago
> but carrying a huge stick seems to be the most effective way to reduce human death and suffering from armed conflict.
Citation needed. I believe there's at least some research showing the opposite: military buildup leads to a higher risk of military conflict
- 827a 8mo agoReading comprehension check: I did not say that it reduced the risk of armed conflict. I said that it reduced the death and human suffering from armed conflict. Between the years of 1850-1950, an estimated 150M humans died (and many more permanently disabled) due to armed conflict (~1.5M/year). Between 1950-today: closer to 10M (~132k/year). The majority of those came from the Vietnam and Korean wars. If you limit the window to after 2000: only ~2M deaths, or ~78k/year. We carry bigger sticks than ever, and those sticks allow us to execute more strategic, incapacitating strikes, or stop conflict from even happening in the first place.
- gizzlon 8mo agoIt's a cliché, but you are forcing my hand: Correlation does not imply causation > If you limit the window to after 2000: only ~2M deaths, or ~78k/year First, this can't be right? Just the Russian war against the Ukraine is more than that? Also, let's do a recount in 2050