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

The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 339 posts

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#31

Post by avgcorrection »

safety1st wrote: post #6

This stuff about the world being peaceful due to the industrial revolution doesn't make a lot of sense to me. For one thing, the IR significantly predated WW1 and WW2. It didn't prevent those, so how'd it cause the "long peace" afterwards? The predominant theory about this in international relations is hegemonic stability theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory - there have been several peri…

> Considering that the US was half of global GDP at the end of WW2 and has long been more than happy to sanction anyone who conducts in an (unapproved) war (such as Russia right now), the modern era of "long peace" fits this theory pretty well.

How often has the US been at not-war in that period?

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#32

Post by newhaus1994 »

avgcorrection wrote: post #31
safety1st wrote: post #6

This stuff about the world being peaceful due to the industrial revolution doesn't make a lot of sense to me. For one thing, the IR significantly predated WW1 and WW2. It didn't prevent those, so how'd it cause the "long peace" afterwards? The predominant theory about this in international relations is hegemonic stability theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory - there have been several peri…

> Considering that the US was half of global GDP at the end of WW2 and has long been more than happy to sanction anyone who conducts in an (unapproved) war (such as Russia right now), the modern era of "long peace" fits this theory pretty well. How often has the US been at not-war in that period?

IR theorists sometimes try to get around this by narrowing the focus to direct great-power wars, which always felt like a cop-out to me (I'm a political scientist)

EDIT: although to be clear, the last time I checked, I believe the stats still back up that overall fatalities from military conflict have been at historic lows. I generally prefer what little Hegemonic Stability there may be to the multipolar shitshows of the early 20th and mid-to-late 19th centuries.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#33

Post by JacobiX »

Another possibility for the period of relatively long peace is the modern equivalent of The Pax Romana. For reference Pax Romana, describes a 200-year era in the Roman Empire from 27 B.C.E. to 180 C.E. This timeframe marked a significant phase of peace and remarkable economic growth achieved through hegemony. The US has the biggest economy and the largest military spending by far.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#34

Post by KineticLensman »

ajuc wrote: post #19
safety1st wrote: post #6

This stuff about the world being peaceful due to the industrial revolution doesn't make a lot of sense to me. For one thing, the IR significantly predated WW1 and WW2. It didn't prevent those, so how'd it cause the "long peace" afterwards? The predominant theory about this in international relations is hegemonic stability theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory - there have been several peri…

Just before WW2 the Haber Bosch process for fixing atmospheric nitrogen into fertilizers/explosives (same thing basically) was invented. Shortly after the war it was widespread, and since then there was no starvation in any developed or even semi-developed country. Hitler started WW2 to annex Ukraine because of its fertile soil. Basically he wanted colonies without the inconvenience of dealing with the sea. Like sovi…

> Hitler started WW2 to annex Ukraine because of its fertile soil

Ukraine wasn't a distinct state then. There were many many factors involved [0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#35

Post by jameshart »

avgcorrection wrote: post #30

> I’ve discussed this before a few times, but I think Azar Gat is probably right to suggest that the long peace is itself a consequence of the changing incentives created by the industrial revolution and to an even greater extent, by nuclear weapons. Prior to the industrial revolution, war was the best way to get rich (if you won) because land and conquered subjects were so much more valuable than any kind of capital…

Well sure - this is just fairly conventional international relations theory. Trying to apply systems thinking to the question of ‘why conflict’ is basically the entire academic discipline of international politics and strategic studies.

This particular take is basically a standard neorealist perspective on how to explain the impact of globalization in reducing conflict. Basically allowing that trade changes the playing field, without allowing that states might be anything other than selfish entities, or that there might be any relevant entities to consider in international affairs (like nonstate actors, cultural power, etc). Other schools of IR theory take different perspectives, but neorealism is basically the foundational view of western foreign policy.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#36

Post by safety1st »

avgcorrection wrote: post #30

> I’ve discussed this before a few times, but I think Azar Gat is probably right to suggest that the long peace is itself a consequence of the changing incentives created by the industrial revolution and to an even greater extent, by nuclear weapons. Prior to the industrial revolution, war was the best way to get rich (if you won) because land and conquered subjects were so much more valuable than any kind of capital…

Honestly another thing I didn't like about this peace was the "Russian army is weak so maybe lots of other armies are weak" idea. That's the last thing we need the chickenhawks running DC to believe

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#37

Post by pclmulqdq »

JacobiX wrote: post #33

Another possibility for the period of relatively long peace is the modern equivalent of The Pax Romana. For reference Pax Romana, describes a 200-year era in the Roman Empire from 27 B.C.E. to 180 C.E. This timeframe marked a significant phase of peace and remarkable economic growth achieved through hegemony. The US has the biggest economy and the largest military spending by far.

Other periods of peace have shown up in history when one empire is the undisputed hegemon of the known world. The pax brittanica is another example, as are several periods in Chinese history.

We are living in the pax Americana right now, but it is unclear how long that will last.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#38

Post by avgcorrection »

jandrese wrote: post #14
A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #4

"We have all noticed that the Russian military appears far less capable than we thought it was; frankly it seems incapable of even some of the very basic tasks of modern industrial armies engaged in conventional military operations." I wondered about that. For the record, I have zero evidence of this as reliable records are hard to find in that arena. Chechnya was Russia's bigger conflict and now, unlike Syria and fe…

IMHO he is overlooking the most obvious answer to why the Russian military is performing poorly. The one that is backed by historical evidence: widespread corruption rotted the organization from the core. Putin is running his country like the world's largest petro-Mafia, with poor internal controls that allowed for a widespread looting of the state's assets. So when it is time for the institutions to do their job the…

Corrupt relative to what? Russia has always been considered corrupt.

- Soviet Union: per definition, at least for ideological reasons

- Post-Soviet Union: Yeltsin, the rise of the oligarchs

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#39

Post by devnullbrain »

KineticLensman wrote: post #34
ajuc wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just before WW2 the Haber Bosch process for fixing atmospheric nitrogen into fertilizers/explosives (same thing basically) was invented. Shortly after the war it was widespread, and since then there was no starvation in any developed or even semi-developed country. Hitler started WW2 to annex Ukraine because of its fertile soil. Basically he wanted colonies without the inconvenience of dealing with the sea. Like sovi…

> Hitler started WW2 to annex Ukraine because of its fertile soil Ukraine wasn't a distinct state then. There were many many factors involved [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II

>Ukraine wasn't a distinct state then.

That has no relevance.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#40

Post by perardi »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #27
perardi wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am willing to agree on this one. There is a clear weariness in US for giving military even more money. I am seeing something similar in the old country and that is despite Russian aggression aimed at Ukraine. Is there really? There’s some grumbling online, and the recent debt ceiling fight did involve a cap on spending. But they still increased spending, and it’s entirely possible and probable that cap is going to…

You raise a valid point. There does seem to be an - not completely unexpected - disconnect between average US denizen and established powers ( in this case, an ancient senator ). I chuckled, because I kinda see that. That said, that boredom will evaporate rather fast when that bored person is asked to pay even more, while given little to no support. And that ask is coming eventually. US has been running on borrowed t…

You are vastly overestimating how much the average US citizen thinks about the military at all, except in the vaguest ways related to social signaling about their class.

We basically have a caste system for the military, so outside certain geographic regions and economic classes, military stuff happens [gestures vaguely] over there. People will posture about it, but nah, nobody will actually cut spending, as the military-industrial complex is everywhere, and “cutting military spending” actually becomes “we can’t shut down that base or stop making that engine part, because jobs”.

What will actually happen is superficial cuts to programs that don’t contribute meaningfully to the debt, but are nice culture war targets. Past that, we’ll engage in some gross race and class cuts to Medicaid. But we are not going to cut military spending, because, again, it’s a jobs program that’s protected by a vague sense of patriotic duty.

Post reply on HN