3 ms·

I wonder if the lower frequency in nation-state warfare is an effect of increasing education levels of females?

nolok 14y ago
No, it is an effect of the cold war and nuclear weapons. Oh and also, no war in western europe because germany/france/uk beating the others wouldn't mean automatic world domination anymore, so we teamed up against the big guys.
jcnnghm 14y ago
That's a nice thought, but it is probably not the cause. "There is a steep positive slope in the numbers of battle deaths between 1816 and 1914 and a steep negative slope between 1945 and 1997." [1] Obviously, something happened in 1945 that changed everything. This change can be almost entirely explained by the United States acquisition of nuclear weapons, and the subsequent policy decision in the United States with respect to war and isolationism. Prior to WWII, US foreign policy was one of isolationism, where the United States largely ignored other nations politics and conflicts. This policy is very cost effective as long as war is avoidable. Unfortunately, neither WWI or WWII were, and both were massively costly. In the wake of WWII isolationism was abandondoned, in part because the United States was the only nation with nuclear arms. The United States decided to take an active role in stabilization, largely through the use of nuclear deterents to prevent interstate conflict between major powers, and smaller, more frequent "stablization" conflicts. Evidence for this is first seen less than three years after WWII ended, with the Berlin blockade, where the Soviet Union attempted to force the west into giving up control of Berlin by blocking supply access. This led to the delivery of 2,236,406 tons of supplies over 278,228 flights in eleven months (the Berlin airlift), which was enabled directly by the United States threat of Nuclear retaliation against the soviets. The United States publicly moved B-29 bombers to Britain to discourage the Soviet Union from interfering with the airlift. Had this deterent not existed, it's entirely possible that the situation would have escelated. Less than five years after WWII ended, with the outbreak of the Korean war, the pattern is reinforced. Before the start of the war, the United States produced 120 MK-III "Fat Man" nuclear weapons yielding 18-49 Kt, and started production of MK-4 1-30 Kt bombs, of which it produced 550 by May 1951. Interestingly, all of the Mk-III's were retired in 1950, and the MK-4's were retired in 1953 because the pace of development was so fast. The US deployed additional B-29's to Britain, with bombs, to discourage the Soviet Union from entering the Korean War. When the Chinese entered the war, MacArthur intended to deploy nuclear weapons against the Chinese, in part to distrupt supply lines with radioactive fallout, and planned to destroy China until it surrendered. MacArthur also made clear that he intended to use nuclear weapons against China if they crossed the 38th parallel, and this was communicated to them. MacArthur was relieved in part because of these plans, and his belief that the power to order the use of nuclear weapons was his, and not the President's. Ridgway, MacArthur's replacement, was authorized to use nuclear weapons in the event of major air attacks originating from outside Korea, and china was directly notified of such. The United States entered the war pre-emptively, then used the threat of nuclear weapons to prevent others from doing so, and to prevent the escaltion of the war. It is not difficult to imagine that without these stabilizing actions either the Berlin airlift of the Korean war could have quickly escelated into World War 3. In 1954, just after the Korean war, the first thermonuclear weapon (5-7Mt) was deployed, marking an end to interstate war between major powers. The highest yielding thermonuclear weapon the US ever deployed, the 25 Mt Mk-41, entered service in 1960, but by that point, the line in the sand had already been drawn. Since 1945 US policy has been clear, it will interfere in foreign affairs, using economic sanctions, conventional war and nuclear deterents to prevent costly large scale conflict. The direct result of this has been stabilization, a long-term decline in war deaths, and the end of interstate war between major powers. It will be interesting to see what happens as this strategy is abandoned as the survivors of WWII die off, and memory of why the US spends so much on its military fades. Hopefully enough time has gone by that a return to hostilities seems unthinkable; no doubt if there is a return, major hostilities will be massively costly in terms of life, money, liberty, and safety. 1: The Declining Risk of Death in Battle Bethany Lacina, Nils Petter Gleditsch and Bruce Russett International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Sep., 2006), pp. 673-680
- learc83 14y ago
  It's funny that richard gatling invented the gatling gun with the goal of reducing conflict by making it too costly, but it took the invention of the nuclear bomb to actually accomplish this. >It will be interesting to see what happens as this strategy is abandoned as the survivors of WWII die off, and memory of why the US spends so much on its military fades. What about all of the other members of the nuclear club? To me it seems that full scale war of the WWI/WWII type isn't really possible between nuclear armed opponents. And since we're talking about the number of battle deaths, it seems like the numbers will only decrease further once human front line combatants aren't really necessary. It seems like the scale of WWII isn't really possible anymore either, even if we remove nuclear weapons. How would you move millions of troops when satellites are tracking your every move?
Spooky23 14y ago
Powerful women are just as ruthless as powerful men. Once the industrial era began, nation-state warfare turned into total war, and led to a consolidation of the nation states that mattered. The US Civil War was the first example of this. You cannot have general warfare between major states, as they will inevitably assure the complete destruction of one or both. Eventually, the US, Russia or to a lesser extent China get involved, and the final escalation point is ICBM salvos.
icegreentea 14y ago
Just to tack a few things on to other people's points, I think at least one reason the amount of nation-state warfare has decreased is because of the effects of colonialization and decolonailization. That is, we're left with a lot of countries with political borders that have little to do with underlying social/ethnic/whatever borders. As a result, you have a lot of ethnicity driven/motivated/aligned conflicts (granted, these conflicts tend to have multiple root causes, but surely ethnicity is often pretty critical) that take place within a country, rather than between countries.
quahada 14y ago
In addition to the other points made on this thread, I think a big factor is that winners don't gain much from war, so why bother. Historically, when economies grew at the rate of population, the only way to become wealthier is to conquer more land. Now, with the global/knowledge based economy, you can become wealthier without having to take over someone else's land. In fact, the costs of the war probably outweigh the spoils.

nolok 14y ago

No, it is an effect of the cold war and nuclear weapons. Oh and also, no war in western europe because germany/france/uk beating the others wouldn't mean automatic world domination anymore, so we teamed up against the big guys.

jcnnghm 14y ago

That's a nice thought, but it is probably not the cause. "There is a steep positive slope in the numbers of battle deaths between 1816 and 1914 and a steep negative slope between 1945 and 1997." [1] Obviously, something happened in 1945 that changed everything. This change can be almost entirely explained by the United States acquisition of nuclear weapons, and the subsequent policy decision in the United States with respect to war and isolationism. Prior to WWII, US foreign policy was one of isolationism, where the United States largely ignored other nations politics and conflicts. This policy is very cost effective as long as war is avoidable. Unfortunately, neither WWI or WWII were, and both were massively costly. In the wake of WWII isolationism was abandondoned, in part because the United States was the only nation with nuclear arms. The United States decided to take an active role in stabilization, largely through the use of nuclear deterents to prevent interstate conflict between major powers, and smaller, more frequent "stablization" conflicts. Evidence for this is first seen less than three years after WWII ended, with the Berlin blockade, where the Soviet Union attempted to force the west into giving up control of Berlin by blocking supply access. This led to the delivery of 2,236,406 tons of supplies over 278,228 flights in eleven months (the Berlin airlift), which was enabled directly by the United States threat of Nuclear retaliation against the soviets. The United States publicly moved B-29 bombers to Britain to discourage the Soviet Union from interfering with the airlift. Had this deterent not existed, it's entirely possible that the situation would have escelated. Less than five years after WWII ended, with the outbreak of the Korean war, the pattern is reinforced. Before the start of the war, the United States produced 120 MK-III "Fat Man" nuclear weapons yielding 18-49 Kt, and started production of MK-4 1-30 Kt bombs, of which it produced 550 by May 1951. Interestingly, all of the Mk-III's were retired in 1950, and the MK-4's were retired in 1953 because the pace of development was so fast. The US deployed additional B-29's to Britain, with bombs, to discourage the Soviet Union from entering the Korean War. When the Chinese entered the war, MacArthur intended to deploy nuclear weapons against the Chinese, in part to distrupt supply lines with radioactive fallout, and planned to destroy China until it surrendered. MacArthur also made clear that he intended to use nuclear weapons against China if they crossed the 38th parallel, and this was communicated to them. MacArthur was relieved in part because of these plans, and his belief that the power to order the use of nuclear weapons was his, and not the President's. Ridgway, MacArthur's replacement, was authorized to use nuclear weapons in the event of major air attacks originating from outside Korea, and china was directly notified of such. The United States entered the war pre-emptively, then used the threat of nuclear weapons to prevent others from doing so, and to prevent the escaltion of the war. It is not difficult to imagine that without these stabilizing actions either the Berlin airlift of the Korean war could have quickly escelated into World War 3. In 1954, just after the Korean war, the first thermonuclear weapon (5-7Mt) was deployed, marking an end to interstate war between major powers. The highest yielding thermonuclear weapon the US ever deployed, the 25 Mt Mk-41, entered service in 1960, but by that point, the line in the sand had already been drawn. Since 1945 US policy has been clear, it will interfere in foreign affairs, using economic sanctions, conventional war and nuclear deterents to prevent costly large scale conflict. The direct result of this has been stabilization, a long-term decline in war deaths, and the end of interstate war between major powers. It will be interesting to see what happens as this strategy is abandoned as the survivors of WWII die off, and memory of why the US spends so much on its military fades. Hopefully enough time has gone by that a return to hostilities seems unthinkable; no doubt if there is a return, major hostilities will be massively costly in terms of life, money, liberty, and safety. 1: The Declining Risk of Death in Battle Bethany Lacina, Nils Petter Gleditsch and Bruce Russett International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Sep., 2006), pp. 673-680

learc83 14y ago
It's funny that richard gatling invented the gatling gun with the goal of reducing conflict by making it too costly, but it took the invention of the nuclear bomb to actually accomplish this. >It will be interesting to see what happens as this strategy is abandoned as the survivors of WWII die off, and memory of why the US spends so much on its military fades. What about all of the other members of the nuclear club? To me it seems that full scale war of the WWI/WWII type isn't really possible between nuclear armed opponents. And since we're talking about the number of battle deaths, it seems like the numbers will only decrease further once human front line combatants aren't really necessary. It seems like the scale of WWII isn't really possible anymore either, even if we remove nuclear weapons. How would you move millions of troops when satellites are tracking your every move?

Spooky23 14y ago

Powerful women are just as ruthless as powerful men. Once the industrial era began, nation-state warfare turned into total war, and led to a consolidation of the nation states that mattered. The US Civil War was the first example of this. You cannot have general warfare between major states, as they will inevitably assure the complete destruction of one or both. Eventually, the US, Russia or to a lesser extent China get involved, and the final escalation point is ICBM salvos.

icegreentea 14y ago

Just to tack a few things on to other people's points, I think at least one reason the amount of nation-state warfare has decreased is because of the effects of colonialization and decolonailization. That is, we're left with a lot of countries with political borders that have little to do with underlying social/ethnic/whatever borders. As a result, you have a lot of ethnicity driven/motivated/aligned conflicts (granted, these conflicts tend to have multiple root causes, but surely ethnicity is often pretty critical) that take place within a country, rather than between countries.

quahada 14y ago

In addition to the other points made on this thread, I think a big factor is that winners don't gain much from war, so why bother. Historically, when economies grew at the rate of population, the only way to become wealthier is to conquer more land. Now, with the global/knowledge based economy, you can become wealthier without having to take over someone else's land. In fact, the costs of the war probably outweigh the spoils.