tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post2134924405990748239..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Why war might really be over (and why it might not)Noah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-82338869492029585142012-11-15T05:13:31.061-05:002012-11-15T05:13:31.061-05:00The argument about costs and benefits is not only ...The argument about costs and benefits is not only unsupported by the historical evidence (countries that go to war are usually neighbours- and so usually trade partners), but misses the essential point that war is mostly about conflicting estimates of relative power - with the definition of what constitutes power part of what is at stake. War has declined in those parts of the world where there are effective states and effective international institutions because those states and institutions define power, and so eliminate the need to fight over what it is and who has it.<br /><br />What might reverse this? One is that the prevailing definitions of power do not accord with common moral perceptions (a low level example might be file-sharing: if people do not see it as wrong, they will resent attempts to enforce IP rights. In the absence of an agreed settlement, they might resist attempts to import regimes like TRIPS, eventually refuse to enforce the law altogether and so on). The US currently has a major problem of this kind with the Islamic world; speculating, it or China might have a similar problem if some climate catastrophe led much of the rest of the world to enforce CO2 limits, or growing inequality might undermine the current institutional consensus. The leap to effective international institutions able to prevent disagreements on major challenges like climate spilling over into violence looks hard to make.Peter Thttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13289172253358199028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-8211305058246877372012-11-14T17:22:54.439-05:002012-11-14T17:22:54.439-05:00The Bush administration had many reasons to think ...The Bush administration had many reasons to think a new Iraq war would be a cakewalk. Overwhelming firepower pretty much guaranteed easy victory in the conventional war phase. Where they failed was in discounting the possibility of effective guerrilla warfare. That depends on the will of the people to carry on the fight and is unknowable before you go in. The relative peace in Afghanistan at that point in time seemed to vindicate the notion that America as the great liberator is welcomed by the oppressed. It would after all be completely irrational to fight somebody who has come to improve your life. Furthermore, when you look at the Bush Administration's assumptions (number of troops, amount of aid etc) it's clear that they had anchored their expectations in the dangerously optimistic territory. Thus their idea of "worst" case scenario apparently ended up missing reality by a considerable margin. <br /><br />In essence, wrong assumptions can lead governments astray and make them think victory will be easy and therefore turn war into a viable policy alternative. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-1562876132853981582012-11-14T05:09:56.517-05:002012-11-14T05:09:56.517-05:00Interesting to read this just after John Quiggin&#...Interesting to read this just after John Quiggin's post at crooked timber.<br /><br />I don't have the info right now, but there's an argument that since the world wars there's been a focus on isolating instability and preventing it from spreading. What this means in practice is that strong nations and regions "export" instability to weaker ones, contain it, and let them exist in permanent low-level conflict and occasional hot wars.<br /><br />You could argue that fewer people die in the long run, but that's cold comfort for anybody who happens to live in one of the chaos zones in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia or Central America.<br /><br />Sidebar: as with a surprising number of things, Israel's handling of the Palestinians turns out to be a model for this approach.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-32792067153049896172012-11-13T12:36:31.408-05:002012-11-13T12:36:31.408-05:00I would also like to add that there are also some ...I would also like to add that there are also some additional reasons that war has declined that have to do with WW2 and its aftermath.<br /><br />With a lot of the world in ruins and American superpower in support and in influence of most of the 'free world' we had several countries which were already a part of an alliance or occupied countries looking to move forward, wanting support and afraid of a new enemy. And of course we also have creation of NATO, political alliances increased and we even had the creation of the european movement and first steps for european union. We had a political change in the 20th century that led to a lot of countries having a political relationship unlike ever before. Unlike the aftermath of WW1, WW2 had a quite different result on the world. <br /><br />And we also had MAD. <br /><br />The political circumstances, alliances are not going to change easily especially since I think all the other reasons mentioned are also valid.Skorpionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04002199941837028311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-68383704870358675392012-11-13T12:26:52.776-05:002012-11-13T12:26:52.776-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Skorpionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04002199941837028311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-42086294411337767752012-11-13T12:15:22.183-05:002012-11-13T12:15:22.183-05:00I think most of those reasons are good explaining ...I think most of those reasons are good explaining why war has declined and pretty much what most of what everyone who thinks about the issue would have concluded. However those reasons are not about war being over.<br /><br />Here are some factors that will cause wars or at least violence: Lack of as much trade in the area as others. Lack of democracies. hatreds from past wars and education teaching people to hate Israel and Jews in certain places in the world and tensions and people dreaming of violence against each other. Israel's capability to strike at targets. And others. <br /><br />Also war is certainly not over in the African Continent.<br /><br />What worries me particularly is what happens when our technology advances more and more, and more and more different entities have access to extremely destructive weapons. A fear of that might cause some wars in certain countries. While other countries that would be more trustworthy as well more integrated economically with each other will care less to fight each other.<br /><br />Skorpionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04002199941837028311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-30122332627024106132012-11-13T12:02:22.668-05:002012-11-13T12:02:22.668-05:00Well 'misperception' as a cause of war is ...Well 'misperception' as a cause of war is well established in the literature, <br /><br />Less information asymmetry between states could conceivably lead to less conflict (if you assume that states act 'rationally'*). <br /><br />If you're having trouble read this to get a general idea<br /><br />http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2010176?uid=3738032&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101367998291<br /><br />*they do notrealpolitic00https://www.blogger.com/profile/00645482294202439511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-27983573773538262922012-11-13T11:48:15.366-05:002012-11-13T11:48:15.366-05:00"I certainly buy the idea that that war is in..."I certainly buy the idea that that war is influenced by strategic considerations (like your #4) and economic considerations, but who's to say that there aren't more factors at work?"<br /><br />You've hit the nail on the head there mate, see "The Causes of War and the Conditions of Peace" by John Garnett for a typology of 'wars' and their different 'causes'.<br /><br />http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=1akfkqhO_m0C&pg=PA20&dq=causes+of+war+Immediate+Efficient+Permissive&hl=en&sa=X&ei=tniiUN5G5sLRBcu7gZgO&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=falserealpolitic00https://www.blogger.com/profile/00645482294202439511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-64432245391209533062012-11-13T11:16:42.896-05:002012-11-13T11:16:42.896-05:00Hi Noah,
You're leaving out 7. Multilaterali...Hi Noah, <br /><br />You're leaving out 7. Multilateralism i.e.. international (UN) / supranational law (EU) and international norms. <br /><br />And 8. The 'Democratic Peace Hypothesis' (the closest thing to a general law that International Relations offers) - basically that democracies do not go to war with one another. Thus the proliferation of democracy in the modern era may be a contributing factor to the perceived decline in major wars.<br /><br />No. 6 only really applies to major powers, just look at the Congo, no drones there.<br /><br />Also theories I-6 all presume rationality on the part of decision makers - an assumption which is very problematic to say the least. realpolitic00https://www.blogger.com/profile/00645482294202439511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-7504663064852726892012-11-13T09:59:42.699-05:002012-11-13T09:59:42.699-05:00I meant - I think your point about local and civil...I meant - I think your point about local and civil wars was a good one and that Noah has a great.... <br /><br />Damn iphones.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-48151066168721109902012-11-13T09:57:52.688-05:002012-11-13T09:57:52.688-05:00I think local and civil was and that Noah has a gr...I think local and civil was and that Noah has a great point on the larger matter. For some reason it seems like war has lost its benefits. I think he is also in the ballpark by suggesting that the rising importance of human capital in regards to what really drives economic growth (particularly in frontier economies) is the critical factor. <br /><br />The thing that bugs me, however, is that I cant imagine human capital ever not being the key. I mean, what made the Greeks, the Romans, the Islamic empire, the Chinese empires, the British empire, etc. what they were was their scientific advances. The only counter examples i can think of off the top of my head are the Mongols and the Vikings, which succeeded by pillaging, but those successes were short lived and were a function of advances in military technology and ways of fighting in any event. <br /><br />To your comment about China. If China were to take Taiwan, the US would get really pissed off, beat its chest like a gorilla right in their face, show off its awesome naval fleet right near their shores, try to get the world on it's side (which I bet would happen), and then do nothing overt. Reason being, it simply wouldnt be worth it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-29597738520395455312012-11-12T23:54:11.057-05:002012-11-12T23:54:11.057-05:00"Look how extensively the Bush Administration..."Look how extensively the Bush Administration had to deceive and isolate the US public opinion from reality in order to persuade the population that Iraq would be a cake walk!"<br />I'd say instead: "Look how easily the Bush administrations could deceive...." ..and it wasn't just Fox News, but the NY Times... which cooperated in the deceiving, and silencing of the voices of reason. And while US voters just rejected a candidate who proposed to 'draw a red line' and have military action against Iran...<br /><br />The arguments for the decline in war are those understood by reasonable people, but are we sure reasonable people win from now on? Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-7334210661676307682012-11-12T23:16:51.484-05:002012-11-12T23:16:51.484-05:00"the advent of the internet and other vast so..."the advent of the internet and other vast sources of free public information, countries probably have a lot more realistic assessments of how likely they would be to prevail in any given conflict."<br /><br />Having trouble picturing how that one would play out. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00697505560124726405noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-62166182669992415262012-11-12T19:38:06.543-05:002012-11-12T19:38:06.543-05:00Pax AmericanaPax AmericanaZaerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04144652173329932870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-79305628766344102982012-11-12T18:35:48.891-05:002012-11-12T18:35:48.891-05:00Well, maybe! I think the return of resource scarci...Well, maybe! I think the return of resource scarcity will cause an increase in war. But how many wars? And how deadly? I think the other factors still apply, and will mitigate the damage unless there's a nuclear exchange.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-32117947219686018852012-11-12T18:34:20.340-05:002012-11-12T18:34:20.340-05:00I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either on...I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with either one...Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-39472759318937649852012-11-12T17:05:26.761-05:002012-11-12T17:05:26.761-05:00@Noah,
I think you missed a possible byproduct of...@Noah,<br /><br />I think you missed a possible byproduct of more intense commerce: permeable/open political systems. If the cause of potential aggression is policy-related, then establishing an effective lobby in another country may be less costy than war. I guess this relates to the coost of war argument, but this is still conceptually distinct. Maybe you could argue it is not structural, but one could question commerce for much the same reason.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14235846531323511190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-67892084089381748812012-11-12T13:07:34.732-05:002012-11-12T13:07:34.732-05:00Noah,
Longtime reader, first time commenter. You ...Noah,<br /><br />Longtime reader, first time commenter. You frame your blog post as disagreeing with Taleb and defending Pinker, but I think you've done precisely the opposite.<br /><br />You note (correctly) that Taleb's point is that the very factors that make war less likely to occur as frequently are the factors that make its departures from the mean deeper (or more violent). But then you say that these structural changes of diminished violence might be permanent (you give smallpox as an example). Taleb is arguing that the very structural changes (many of which you put forward as potential causes fall into this category) that diminish violence are the same ones that foster more violent episodes. You agree that he's arguing this, and then say that this change might be permanent. <br /><br />I fail to see how your blog post is arguing that these structural factors (especially if permanent) do not push wars into being bigger and more violent than ever before.Chris Minichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16127747650201849962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-51021868588315697362012-11-12T12:10:16.537-05:002012-11-12T12:10:16.537-05:00"Everyone has a game plan until they get punc..."Everyone has a game plan until they get punched in the face"<br /><br /><em>— Mike Tyson.</em><br /><br />While mutually assured destruction has played a big role, I think the Long Peace is contingent upon the underlying economic fundamentals of the Long Peace — cheap, plentiful oil, increased agricultural returns, technological proliferation and growth, growth, growth (at least in the West). Any destabilisation of this will imperil the Long Peace — if the fundamentals go, the "peace bubble" is over, and nations will have things to fight about. Let's just say I find the fact that the Western world is in an economic depression deeply, deeply worrying.Azizhttp://www.azizonomics.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-72265454479936956652012-11-12T11:59:09.010-05:002012-11-12T11:59:09.010-05:00No Noah it is you that is barking up the wrong tre...No Noah it is you that is barking up the wrong tree unfortunately. Students of history, such as yourself, know this. All you need to do is look around you.<br /><br />We here in the South learned this from the Cherokee Indians when we first stepped foot on their land. How did they react? They tricked us into doing their bidding. If not for germs they would have killed us all (guns and steel were irrelevant here in the South. Always have been, always will be).<br /><br />That is why folks up North don't know what's really going on in the world. You're fighting and clawing your way to the top, trying to fight everyone off. Well the financial crisis showed us that is as true to today as it has ever been.<br /><br />Wake up and smell the roses.<br /><br />Cheers,<br /><br />Something CleverishAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-18946147299787459922012-11-12T11:39:21.746-05:002012-11-12T11:39:21.746-05:00Seems like a mistake to omit possible sociological...Seems like a mistake to omit possible sociological explanations. (I give you credit for including #5, but only partial credit.)<br /><br />I certainly buy the idea that that war is influenced by strategic considerations (like your #4) and economic considerations, but who's to say that there aren't more factors at work? The evidence that jumps out at me here is that many powerful countries appear to have grown considerably less violent *internally* over the past century or so. I think this is especially true if you look at dramatic examples of organized violence. E.g. it is extremely difficult to imagine anything at all like the Holocaust happening in modern Germany, or to imagine anything like our past epidemics of lynching happening in the modern U.S.<br /><br />Is it not at least plausible that whatever forces have been driving a decline in severe inter-group violence within nation-states might also be playing a role in the decline of severe violence between nation-state groups?<br /><br />Like I said, this need not crowd out other ways of theorizing about the problem, but it seems like a mistake to leave this type of explanation off the table. This type of cause does seem harder to put your finger on, harder to think about rigorously, and harder to guess at whether it might be a lasting structural change or not. But to echo something you've said about DSGE, the theories that are easiest to express and manipulate might turn out not to be the most truthful.Evannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-27172180710211236042012-11-12T10:37:40.879-05:002012-11-12T10:37:40.879-05:00I need correct one point you made:
"Look how...I need correct one point you made:<br /><br />"Look how extensively the Bush Administration had to deceive and isolate the US public opinion from reality in order to persuade the population that Iraq would be a cake walk!"<br /><br />The information age is a weak factor for force the decline the war and can just have a contrarian effect: the disinformation age can make wars easier. <br /><br />Too take note that low fertility rates and high monetary coust of war are linked: countries that have a low supply of "angry young men" are just the countries are investing at high thecnology war gear, as invisible jets and drones. Simply, lower supply make the "angry young men" more expensive that the new toys. However, I am not sure if the new toys make the victory easier, something wrong happened to the new toys at Lebbannon (2006) and Georgia (2008). Take note that Georgia war ended with the defeat of Georgia forces that used the advanced weapons that NATO give them before the russian army had time for make an effective offensive. <br /><br />Too take note that high thecnology with high monetary coust toys are not new to world history and they proved taht fail a lot of times. The ancient egiptians and the Hitite Empire made war t using high coust war carriots that were the most advanced thecnology at the end of the Bronze Age. Both empires were destroyed by the "People of Sea" that used tatics and non-expensive weapons made for destroy that carriots. From that date we can see that pattern repeat a lot of times along the History (sadly, history repeat itself a lot of times...). I fear that sooner or later a third world country will use strategies similar to the Millennium Challenge 2002 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002) that will prove be extremelly effective against a first world high thecnology fleet.<br />João Carloshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03071469488376795686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-42007875372099751792012-11-12T10:14:27.244-05:002012-11-12T10:14:27.244-05:00I thought the most commonly cited reason for the d...I thought the most commonly cited reason for the drop in violence (if it is real) is that it is related to faith in institutions. There is I think a pretty strong correlation between and within countries with strong independent government agencies and honest police, etc., and low levels of personal violence. If you trust institutions to give justice and fairness, then you don't feel as inclined to go shoot your neighbour over that boundary dispute, or go to war over a disputed island.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-12113580306438167482012-11-12T09:29:20.045-05:002012-11-12T09:29:20.045-05:00Noah, Miles also gives the buffer positive inflati...Noah, Miles also gives the buffer positive inflation allows for central banks to reduce rates as a major benefit of inflation. If we went to a zero inflation world, are there other benefits that would be lost? Or would they be outweighed by the benefits from a zero inflation economy?<br /><br />And don't be too hard on Taleb, remember that you both worship Richard Feynman.Simonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-49332589573599878482012-11-12T09:13:55.602-05:002012-11-12T09:13:55.602-05:00Taleb thinks we will return to a pre-industrial so...Taleb thinks we will return to a pre-industrial society this century, so I'm not sure to what extent he is worth responding to, or whether any of these arguments will work against him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com