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

41–50 of 237 posts

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#41

Post by akira2501 »

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…

> In an ideal future, firearms would be banned worldwide.

But not bombs, knives, chemicals or sources of radiation?

Well.. good luck.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#42

Post by imtringued »

graeme wrote: post #23

The thing is without force your stuff gets taken. We haven't got a good way around this. Our current peace is heavily based on nuclear weapons and the implied threat of force. Don't like the status quo? Use force to try to change it. Do like the status quo? Use force to try to keep it that way. We don't have a stable equiliubrium where no force exists in the system. Many in this thread effectively say "You can do wha…

Consider it an economic problem. War costs money, therefore war will be conducted when its benefits exceed its costs. What makes war profitable? For that you need to know the benefits of war. The most obvious benefit is the changing of borders and conquering of new land. Now you might say that it always makes sense for a country to try to conquer the enire world, because having the land grants you access to its riches for free, but then you have to consider the costs of war too.

The cost of conquering land and managing it yourself must be cheaper than letting the other country manage the land and production process and then importing the goods you want.

The cost of conquering the land can be split into two parts. First, the initial offensive representing capex and the ongoing defense costs against attackers represent opex. If it turns out that the foreign country is both fleecing you on imports and is spending less in defense per acre than you would, if you managed the land, it would be profitable for you to conquer the land and install a defense force that spends more to protect the same plot of land. Since your spending budget is higher per acre, the original country would lose if they tried to recover the territory.

Now consider the opposite scenario. The original country does not fleece you on imports and has a lean army. Then it would not be profitable for you to conquer the land, since you have higher opex and the benefit is insignificant.

Of course none of this stops crazy dictators from attempting world domination, but it can tell you that on average, people should be uninterested in war.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#43

Post by Aerroon »

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…

If you aren't physically strong enough to defend yourself then you shouldn't be able to defend yourself?

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#44

Post by lovecg »

graeme wrote: post #23

The thing is without force your stuff gets taken. We haven't got a good way around this. Our current peace is heavily based on nuclear weapons and the implied threat of force. Don't like the status quo? Use force to try to change it. Do like the status quo? Use force to try to keep it that way. We don't have a stable equiliubrium where no force exists in the system. Many in this thread effectively say "You can do wha…

And people are slowly testing the limits of the nuke deterrent. Turns out everyone is really hesitant to use them especially when the aggressor has nukes too.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#45

Post by ocschwar »

graeme wrote: post #23

The thing is without force your stuff gets taken. We haven't got a good way around this. Our current peace is heavily based on nuclear weapons and the implied threat of force. Don't like the status quo? Use force to try to change it. Do like the status quo? Use force to try to keep it that way. We don't have a stable equiliubrium where no force exists in the system. Many in this thread effectively say "You can do wha…

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 Keynes, not Ayn Rand. It was not a matter of market fetishism. It was based on the sensible idea that the market place is a better way to settle these things than the battlefield, something even a Marxist should be willing to admit.

That could have brought us to a world wide peace in 1945, but only the First World went along with this idea. The Second World rallied around endless revolution and war until we get a worker's paradise. And the Third World tried to stay out altogether. (Reminder: by the original definition, Switzerland was in the Third World).

We had another chance in 1989. And we blew it.

Now we can try again.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#47

Post by lovecg »

imtringued wrote: post #42
graeme wrote: post #23

The thing is without force your stuff gets taken. We haven't got a good way around this. Our current peace is heavily based on nuclear weapons and the implied threat of force. Don't like the status quo? Use force to try to change it. Do like the status quo? Use force to try to keep it that way. We don't have a stable equiliubrium where no force exists in the system. Many in this thread effectively say "You can do wha…

Consider it an economic problem. War costs money, therefore war will be conducted when its benefits exceed its costs. What makes war profitable? For that you need to know the benefits of war. The most obvious benefit is the changing of borders and conquering of new land. Now you might say that it always makes sense for a country to try to conquer the enire world, because having the land grants you access to its riche…

It’s interesting that the relative costs of offense vs. defense vary with technological development. In the middle ages when castles existed but guns did not, and societal structure was such that mounting enormous besieging armies of antiquity was not possible, the borders mostly stayed intact. It’s possible we’re entering something similar judging by the drone war in Ukraine which seems to heavily favor defense.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#48

Post by doubloon »

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....

half of those are not proxy wars in any way shape or form.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#49

Post by to11mtm »

xg15 wrote: post #21
nyc_data_geek wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A small percentage of humans can catch some hands and get stuffed into lockers by the rest of us who would prefer not to be led by them.

A small percentage of humans are wired with a strong territorial mind and/or a greedy personality. A large percentage of humans are wired to view those traits as favourable and attractive and view such persons as charismatic "leaders" to follow and identify with. My suspicion is, this is in the genes too, and I feel this is almost the bigger part of the problem.

The issue observed over millennia, is that if you get rid of -all- the greedy people in your land, the greedy person in charge of next door sees opportunity.

> My suspicion is, this is in the genes too, and I feel this is almost the bigger part of the problem.

My more specific suspicion is that some of it is that those who can 'go with the flow' are more likely to survive various 'cleansing's over the ages, and perhaps in fact the most 'opportunistic' (i.e. those that are not -quite- megalomania tier) find those opportunities and become that sort of 'old money bottom feeder' type.

Re: Can men live without war? (1956)

#50

Post by to11mtm »

Greyfoscam wrote: post #29
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.

Not feeling threatened is the keyword. Modern society has many complacency triggers. Dangerous situation, drive away. Feel unsafe, call police. Injured physically or spiritually, seek compensation through the law. The interesting question is what happens when these safety systems become stagnant and less responsive

Especially when other social norms 'get in the way'.

Someone that actually hired me at a past job, at her next job wound up hiring someone who performed a very intentional set of revenge porn acts on me. [0]

Of course, I dare not speak up on social media, as it would impact my ability to find a job in the future. At 'best' I would be a drama magnet, at worst claims could be made and it would be a mud-slinging fest.

I still have siblings that dislike when I speak up about how at my first high school, a starting basketball player slammed my head into a locker a half dozen times, I was told afterwards that I was not allowed to go to the school nurse, with no regard given for anything I slurred post-concussion... and that my parents didn't do anything about the injustice because it was a catholic school and mum was so catholic she dressed like a nun.

So, I just have to let it sit.

And it all works out, because Carhartt is shit now anyway.

[0] - Which gives me the dubious claim of having someone blocking me on LinkedIn, lmao.

Post reply on HN