Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can men live without war? (1956)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 237 posts

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#141

Post by Turing_Machine »

jokoon wrote: post #14

In an ideal future, firearms would be banned worldwide. A body like interpol would investigate the entire world, to surveil if anybody is trying to make firearms. People would make bows and spears, but it would be more difficult to conduct war. It would not make war and violence impossible, but it would certainly be a better world. EDIT: lots of pedants: obviously there would be an joint army answering to an internat…

You can make firearms in your garage, and there's nothing at all pedantic about that fact.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#142

Post by ocschwar »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #52
ocschwar wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 K…

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 th…

"> 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.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#143

Post by Turing_Machine »

squigz wrote: post #124
injb wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To ensure the natural advantage that strong people have over weak people, of course. Nature has ordained that the strong should subjugate the weak, and the equalizing force of firearms is thus an afront to nature, and is not to be tolerated!

Describing widespread firearms as socially "equalizing" is a new one to me, so thanks for that.

Firearms grant their owners the right to say "No".

Tyrants hate that.

Before firearms the world was mostly ruled by "nobles" (i.e., those who had extorted enough from the peasants to afford weapons and armor, and had the free time for the required years of training).

Now, it isn't. That didn't happen because the "nobles" suddenly decided to turn into nice guys.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#144

Post by kiba »

blub wrote: post #120
kiba wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia is a North Korean 'proxy'. With South Korea considering lethal aid, Ukraine may soon be a 'proxy' of South Korea. In the end, Russia made their own decision to invade, and the Ukrainians' own decision to resist.

Ukraine may not have started as a proxy, but it became one as its military stocks were exhausted. Both EU and US politicians claim on record that Ukraine would fold within days or weeks if it didn’t get support. At this point US+EU are paying for the pensions, military and keeping Ukraine’s economy afloat. Our military aid is keeping Ukraine in the fight. This doesn’t mean the Ukrainians don’t have agency or don’t ma…

By the way, South Korea has already sent hundreds of thousands of artillery shells to Ukraine at the request of the US. They’re now considering sending weapons and this might trigger Russia to send missiles or nuclear tech to North Korea.

It's actually the other way around. North Korea getting new tech is prompting South Korea to respond in turn. That's why Russia and Ukraine became 'proxies' for the Koreans, North or South.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#145

Post by rhelz »

qntmfred wrote: post #31
rhelz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about you guys, but I think my masculinity is strong enough to survive the lack of war. I'm just not feeling threatened, here.

very admirable. prepare to be invaded.

When is the last time Switzerland has been invaded? Or at war?

And I am sure that Swiss men don't feel like peace is any threat to their manliness either.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#146

Post by rhelz »

openasocket wrote: post #26
rhelz wrote: post #12

Fascinating article...written not that long after it looked like men or anybody else could never live with war again. But, those fretting about the necessity of war need not have worried, as subsequent events proved. War between nuclear powers doesn't happen any more, but instead we've had endless proxy wars. Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ukraine....

We’ve had at least one war between nuclear powers off the top of my head. The Kargil war of 1999 between India and Pakistan, I believe both sides had nuclear weapons deployed at the time. EDIT: also the Sino-soviet war of 1969

I stand corrected.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#147

Post by salawat »

ocschwar wrote: post #142
TeMPOraL wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

"> 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.

...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.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#148

Post by never_inline »

xanderlewis wrote: post #115
hnthrowaway0328 wrote: post #2

No we cannot. A small percentage of humans are wired with a strong territorial mind and/or a greedy personality. It's in the gene. Some of them eventually become leaders.

Luckily, such innate drive and desire to dominate can be funnelled into something more productive and less detrimental to others. Instead of becoming a president and starting wars of aggression, why not try sports? How about becoming an academic, an expert in some esoteric field, and spend your days acquiring intellectual territory and terrorising your intellectual opponents? Or use your greed to start a business tha…

> why not try sports?

Being good at athletics requires specific good genetics.

> acquiring intellectual territory

Analytical intellect is not a valued trait in the current society. It will not increase your status in most cases. It actively works against you in certain social structures. Unless your intellectual territory grants you significant material benefits, there's no use out of it.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#149

Post by salawat »

xanderlewis wrote: post #115
hnthrowaway0328 wrote: post #2

No we cannot. A small percentage of humans are wired with a strong territorial mind and/or a greedy personality. It's in the gene. Some of them eventually become leaders.

Luckily, such innate drive and desire to dominate can be funnelled into something more productive and less detrimental to others. Instead of becoming a president and starting wars of aggression, why not try sports? How about becoming an academic, an expert in some esoteric field, and spend your days acquiring intellectual territory and terrorising your intellectual opponents? Or use your greed to start a business tha…

Por que no los dos? Plug into the MIC, get into politics, get into constant "police actions", scratch other's politician's backs, and make bank.

War is good business. Political power is absolutely something worth being bought/sought. Long as that is the case, the power hungry gonna seek power to wield, and they'll wield it to to their own ends; and realistically, once they're locked in as having it, it isn't for you or anyone else ultimately.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#150

Post by hcfman »

It’s funny how most of the discussions below have as a basis that people will always behave rationally. As if the threat of total destruction will always stop a particular cause of action.

Putting the fate on mankind in this basic premise is the flaw behind the entire building of such bombs in the first place.

Nothing short of idiocy.

Post reply on HN