I read this and it resonated with me: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-01-03/us-can...
So, in the spirit of "if you want peace, prepare for war", I believe the best way to life in peace is to remain peaceful yourself, but CONSISTENTLY engage in EARLY and AGGRESSIVE action which you see through to its CONCLUSION. And yes, in order to be successful, you have to have all of these four elements.
Unfortunately, western democracies repeatedly have fallen short on at least some of these aspects which emboldens everyone from giant countries like Russia or China down to tiny groups like the Huthis.
This is simply not true. With the exception of the recent Ukrainian war, violent deaths on Earth have been massively trending downward for decades.
There is much less war affecting many fewer people than ever before. This is no accident, and it is the result of hard work by people who don’t espouse these sorts misguided of “more aggression is better” beliefs. :(
Right after they spiked to an all time high during WW1/WW2/Stalin/Mao reign.
I know what you mean and I don't want to dismiss it outright - a lot of the small conquests that dominated Europa for millennia have indeed vanished and the motivations for war in a knowledge economy are very different. But I think we've mostly switched lots of small wars between small countries for fewer big wars between bigger countries - with bigger intervals in between.
The trending downwards for decades statement requires to take measurement only in very specific timeframes and regions. If we take the last 100 years as a whole, they certainly have not.
There is indeed much less war now than then. It seems that the doctrine of mutually assured destruction is working, for better or worse.
Cold wars, proxy wars, limited in scope and scale wars - these are better than what came before.
But it wasn’t an all time high, if you look at proportions, as we should.
Pinker has talked a lot about this, and going far back in history [0] has estimates that 15% of people died from violent deaths compared to 0.15% during the peak of ww2 Germany.
[0] https://longnow.org/seminars/02012/oct/08/decline-violence/
7.5% of Germany's population died during WW2, that is just military deaths, excluding civilians dead from bombing raids by the Allies, hunger, disease, etc.
The 0.15% number is absolute nonsense, and anyone who is seriously using it, knows nothing about history (which is just about right for a fraud like Pinker)
You're clearly out of touch here.
The war in Ukraine was going on sice 2014, and you also missed the Armenian Azerbaijan war in Nagorno-Karabakh, then the Papua conflict, then the dozens of other conflict on the African continent. And don't forget the war on terror which cost thousands of lives, trillions of dollars, 4 US presidents and 20 years just to replace the Taliban with the Taliban.
War has never stopped. You just stopped looking for it since it's not happening in your back yard, if the only one you can mention is the one in Ukraine.
We don’t wage wars anywhere near the scale that we used to, and that’s a good thing.
The money is a different matter, of course.
French revolution, Napoleonic wars, American Civil War, wars of independence in Latin America, etc. comprise some 100 years. In the last 80 years we had markedly less deadly wars across the whole world...
Do you not think the hard work of people backed up by carrier strike groups is part of the equation? Ideally forced never has to be used, but sometimes it does.
"Decades" is a really short time frame IMO, especially if you're comparing to thousands of years of human history. It could totally just be a lucky "blip".
> This is no accident, and it is the result of hard work by people who don’t espouse these sorts misguided of “more aggression is better” beliefs. :(
Or, it's the result of the latter half of the 20th century being mostly dominated by two incredibly powerful countries, poised for war at any time. It could exactly be the result of the massive increase in potential for aggression that nuclear weapons pose.
I think it's very far from obvious that the reason for the relative peace of the last 70 years is because of work by people advocating peace.
I get it though, with more than 30% of the US defence budget the Navy feels left out of the whole war thing recently (not that much the Navy can help with in the war against Russia), similar to how the Japanese admirals felt left out of China and Manchuria back in the late '30s, so they'll take any opportunity of a war that they think they'll win easily with the most open of arms.