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

If you want peace, study war

persuasion.community

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 223 posts

Re: If you want peace, study war

#41

Post by dragonwriter »

inglor_cz wrote: post #30
roenxi wrote: post #14

The scary thing for me about wars is that the soldiers aren't the ones making the decisions. Some group of people in comfortable offices look at a map, says "yeah, I think this option is more favourable to us than peace". Then a war happens. It is all about incentives and capabilities. One of the lessons from being a Stallman watcher for many years - people are profoundly evidence based . If there hasn't been a war i…

Wars are scary regardless of who makes the decisions, but I think that the situation where the army obeys civilians is, in general, much better than the one where the military decides whether it wants to go to (or continue) a war or not. For example, it seems that the civilian elite of Germany and Austria-Hungary was ambivalent about war in early 1918, especially in A-H, and willing to entertain possible ceasefire wi…

I don’t think what the GP found disturbing was civilian control of the military, but the distance between the decisionmakers choosing to go to war and the people bearing the cost, which is not significantly different in systems which lack civilian control of the military than those that have it.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#42

Post by smokey_circles »

arethuza wrote: post #39
Danieru wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The scary thing for me about wars is that the soldiers aren't the ones making the decisions. Letting Soldiers & Generals control the military is the exact mistake which lead to Japan's military aggression. Keeping the head of the military a civilian/politician is perhaps one of the few ideas everyone should be able to agree is smart.

The Cuban Missile Crisis is another example where if things had been left purely to the militaries of both sides things would probably have escalated very badly.

I don't think that's true, but I'll also admit that the history of the cold war is very muddled and I am no historian.

The US's version was written by the white house's journalist. It is not objective and lots has been refuted from calls leaked by the soviets after the fact, and a few of the advisors too.

TruTV/Adam Ruins Everything has a take on it [0] (not saying that's the objective history but they raise some eyebrows).

Some facts we do know though:

1. JFK rode on an anti-communist wave to beat his opponent into office

2. The US moved missiles first

3. The military was following orders from the top

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5wc9V7ggVg

--------

EDIT: on some reflection, I think I actually just proved your point. If that was just left to the military then cooler heads may not have prevailed

Re: If you want peace, study war

#43

Post by ersii »

toopok4k3 wrote: post #37
golergka wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nationalistic drive has nothing in common with the real memories of tragedies and horrors of the war.

But nationalistic drive has everything in common with how wars start.

In what way do nationalistic drive have everything in common with how wars start?

Re: If you want peace, study war

#44

Post by baud147258 »

roenxi wrote: post #14

The scary thing for me about wars is that the soldiers aren't the ones making the decisions. Some group of people in comfortable offices look at a map, says "yeah, I think this option is more favourable to us than peace". Then a war happens. It is all about incentives and capabilities. One of the lessons from being a Stallman watcher for many years - people are profoundly evidence based . If there hasn't been a war i…

if it was the soldiers making the decisions, it'd still be a group of people in comfortable offices looking at a map, they'd just be wearing uniforms while doing so. And I think (going back to Clausewitz), that military goals should be subordinated to the political goals of why there is a military action in the first place. And if it's the military that decides the political goals, they're in power and it's a junta.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#45

Post by pkkim »

roenxi wrote: post #14

The scary thing for me about wars is that the soldiers aren't the ones making the decisions. Some group of people in comfortable offices look at a map, says "yeah, I think this option is more favourable to us than peace". Then a war happens. It is all about incentives and capabilities. One of the lessons from being a Stallman watcher for many years - people are profoundly evidence based . If there hasn't been a war i…

Bret Devereaux of acoup.blog defends the idea of civilian control of the military here, with better references and more eloquently than I can. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1336392888629010437.html

In particular, he argues that the way you avoid things like World War II is in part precisely by making sure the military does not make decisions of war and peace.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#46

Post by Razengan »

> “War…What is it good for?” the classic song asks. Many universities agree on the answer: “Absolutely nothing.”

War culls human populations, and carries out natural selection.

So it's "good" for something even if we don't want to admit it or to use the word "good" when bringing up those things.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#47

Post by pydry »

Ancapistani wrote: post #40
sudhirj wrote: post #16

There are notes in Sapiens proposing that war (the violent kind) is no longer useful / does not produce outcomes because the global economy has shifted from one of physical resources to knowledge based. That it no longer makes sense to fight over things that aren't worth as much these days, like land, oil or gold, when you can just trade. Most of money comes from peace time commerce. This seems accurate, but time wil…

I don’t have a citation in front of me at four in the morning, but I distinctly recall this exact argument being made prior to the First World War - that the increasing trade between the major powers precluded war because the financial interests were too powerful.

It sort of did, which is why the first step towards war was trade decoupling.

I'd say we are in the beginning/mid stages of that now.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#48

Post by vagrantJin »

Scramblejams wrote: post #20
sudhirj wrote: post #16

There are notes in Sapiens proposing that war (the violent kind) is no longer useful / does not produce outcomes because the global economy has shifted from one of physical resources to knowledge based. That it no longer makes sense to fight over things that aren't worth as much these days, like land, oil or gold, when you can just trade. Most of money comes from peace time commerce. This seems accurate, but time wil…

when you can just trade Peacetime commerce requires free waterways. Everyone can "just trade" because the U.S. Navy has guaranteed free navigation of the seas since Bretton Woods[1]. When America withdraws from its security obligations, others will fill the vacuum, with all the uncertainty that implies. A national leader who fears being cut off from essential resources will very logically view war as an option. Edit:…

Pardon my colorful language and preaching.

> the U.S. Navy has guaranteed free navigation

The sea has never belonged to anyone but this statement implies that the US has ownership rights with regards to ocean usage that they now let others use at their whim.

The only word I can use to describe that is hubris

Re: If you want peace, study war

#49

Post by sudhirj »

lovelyviking wrote: post #24
sudhirj wrote: post #16

There are notes in Sapiens proposing that war (the violent kind) is no longer useful / does not produce outcomes because the global economy has shifted from one of physical resources to knowledge based. That it no longer makes sense to fight over things that aren't worth as much these days, like land, oil or gold, when you can just trade. Most of money comes from peace time commerce. This seems accurate, but time wil…

What do you mean “time will tell”? It doesn’t tell already? Now when Russia have occupied parts of Ukraine?

Without condoning it, that wasn't an all out war. It's a really complicated situation and seems more like a political action. Less people were killed than in the Capitol breach, don't think anyone is referring to that as the second civil war.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#50

Post by tpoacher »

golergka wrote: post #27
jakubp wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh boy. In my country, memories of war (World War II in particular), tragedies, sacrifices, "heroes" etc. are continually fueled by the ruling party. They built hundreds of new monuments in the past 10 years, gave thousands of streets names related to their selection of war and post-war heroes, etc. Let me tell you, this is the main way to drive nationalistic divide, because the other half of the people in the countr…

Nationalistic drive has nothing in common with the real memories of tragedies and horrors of the war.

Agreed. If anything, it serves the opposite: it creates this false glorification image of war as a noble pursuit.
Post reply on HN