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

51–60 of 223 posts

Re: If you want peace, study war

#51

Post by inglor_cz »

dragonwriter wrote: post #41
inglor_cz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is perhaps an argument to have more veterans in politics.

Former Czechoslovak president Ludvík Svoboda, a general who fought in the WWII and went through some of the bloodiest battles involving Czechoslovak forces [0], was known to be very wary of militaristic ideas later.

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

Re: If you want peace, study war

#52

Post by wizzwizz4 »

Razengan wrote: post #46

> “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.

Natural selection isn't good. In terms of “bad things to do to humans”, it comes in just behind eugenics, and that's only because we haven't worked out how to do that without horrible horrible crimes against humanity (yet). (Yes, natural selection is legitimately bad enough that “make eugenics less genocidey and then do that instead” is actually on the table – I am so glad the problem can probably keep for another century or two, so I won't have to be responsible if we end up with some dystopia or other.)

These aren't good things. I mean, war does accomplish them, but… I'd rather they weren't accomplished.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#53

Post by cosmodisk »

tomalpha wrote: post #10
chmod600 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you want peace, study the historical reasons for conflicts and how to avoid them I've always heard: if you want peace, prepare for war

From the classic Latin “Si vis pacem para bellum” [0] I’d always interpreted this to imply that deterrence was good - appear strong to prevent others picking a fight with you, rather than studying. I always wondered if the 9mm Parabellum cartridge was named after the saying too, but no such enlightenment is available on the Wikipedia page at least [1] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Si_vis_pacem,_para_bellum [1]…

While it's true even today,I think at the time it was heavily related to the fact that most countries usually had to raise money and hire majority of soldiers when facing/declaring war rather then keeping them on payroll permanently. So if an enemy is banging at the gate, it's a bit too late to start sending message around 'we are hiring'.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#54

Post by hkt »

Maybe slightly trite of me to reply only to the title, but there's actually a rich and interesting study of peace and peace processes which is more relevant than war, which only signifies their failure.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#55

Post by cosmodisk »

At least in Europe,while there were appalling conflicts throughout, we already had a couple of generations in most countries that hadn't lived through any war. We never had it so good for so long. War seems such a distant, incomprehensible thing anyone can hardly grasp. We get a little bit excited and shocked when we see reports from Ukraine or Balkans back in the day, but that's it. It's all somewhere out there,not in my neighborhood. And long,pieceful periods bring out all sorts of cretins who, otherwise, would be put in place at the very beginning but instead being given platforms,funds,and other resources to spread division, misinformation,and drive some random agendas.

It is also very hard to grasp that a war can start just like that, so people tend to dismiss clues too: 'Nah, they won't do it.'

Re: If you want peace, study war

#56

Post by Scramblejams »

sudhirj wrote: post #49
lovelyviking wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Less people were killed than in the Capitol breach

How do you figure that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_cr...

Re: If you want peace, study war

#57

Post by Broken_Hippo »

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:…

To be fair, the US doesn't exactly keep out uncertainty or anything like that. US military policy is subject to the whims of the current management - and no one can really expect the US to keep any sort of agreements at this point. Not only that, but enforcement seems to be more aimed at trying to show strength (ships in china seas) or sanctions, and less on making sure folks can trade or have safety.

I'd argue that the real reason for being able to "just trade" is simply that most countries aren't interested in warring and impeding this: The agreement works out for many. The organizations set up at Bretton Woods would be in place even if the US fails completely.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#58

Post by Broken_Hippo »

Razengan wrote: post #46

> “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.

Someone dying isn't natural selection: It is just death.

Sex education and free access to birth control, sterilization, and abortion lowers population without the trauma of war.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#59

Post by masonic »

inglor_cz wrote: post #51
dragonwriter wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is perhaps an argument to have more veterans in politics. Former Czechoslovak president Ludvík Svoboda, a general who fought in the WWII and went through some of the bloodiest battles involving Czechoslovak forces [0], was known to be very wary of militaristic ideas later. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Dukla_Pass

Just as Eisenhower warned of the growing influence of the military-industrial complex in 1960.

Re: If you want peace, study war

#60

Post by arethuza »

smokey_circles wrote: post #42
arethuza wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eye…

I can strongly recommend "One Minute to Midnight: Kennedy, Khrushchev and Castro on the Brink of Nuclear War" by Michael Dobbs:

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2606779-one-minute-to-mi...

For extra nightmare fuel "The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner" by Daniel Ellsberg:

https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/25663779-the-doomsday...

The latter book literally gave me nightmares.

Post reply on HN