The End of War

[Kooky]

The biggest failing of deterrence is that it sooner or later ends in war.

The biggest failing of a lack of deterrence is that it sooner or later ends in war.

The problem is that violence is part of human nature.

That sounds like a pretty major point of failure, considering that deterrence is supposed to prevent wars from happening, doesn't it?

So what would you say is the utility of deterrence when war is going to happen anyway?

Yet given there was plenty of antagonism and distrust, why do you think it was a viable possibility?

For the same reason that I believe it is possible to have an economic system without slavery - from the fact that one system has been in place for very long, it does not necessarily follow that such a system has to exist for eternity, and in fact, the obvious failure points of such a system should allow for agents to cast it aside for a better solution to a problem it can't deal with.

That makes it fine then.

It was the qualifier I attached to my earlier statement. Feel free to argue with the premise of international treaties as valid foundation for diplomatic interaction.

Suprised the Poles and Lithuanians even bothered complaining when the Soviets were obviously their rightful overlords.

There is no such thing as a "rightful overlord" - that's what I've been trying to tell you from the start.
Imperialism is an inherently oppressive system that inevitably leads to global destruction.

WW1 should have already taught us that, but apparently it taught most of us that imperialism is fine as long as we are being dominated by the "rightful" imperialistic overlord.

Which is the old conundrum, if you are weak the strong may prey on you. If you make yourself stronger, others fear being preyed on.

It is the paradox at the heart of the Machiavellian model of geopolitics, and it is that paradox that leads us into world wars, and likely nuclear annihilation at some point in the future.

Humans are great at making technological progress, but not at rewiring our nature to make sufficient moral and social progress.

"Human nature" is a great excuse to not have to think about alternatives and to never raise one's hand against injustice or atrocity. Ultimately, though, it is an intellectually hollow concept that does not offer us anything but a readimade justification for oppression, genocide, and slavery.

Which, going back to the OP, is why there will always be war.

Well, then I guess you can't complain if Putin's Russia were to invade Ukraine - after all, they would simply be obeying their base human nature like all of us do, and there is now way the Putin regime could have acted any differently!

 

[Augustus]

That sounds like a pretty major point of failure, considering that deterrence is supposed to prevent wars from happening, doesn't it?

So what would you say is the utility of deterrence when war is going to happen anyway?

Because if other countries are going to have powerful militaries, then you can defend yourself. Sooner or later, you will probably have to.

For the same reason that I believe it is possible to have an economic system without slavery - from the fact that one system has been in place for very long, it does not necessarily follow that such a system has to exist for eternity, and in fact, the obvious failure points of such a system should allow for agents to cast it aside for a better solution to a problem it can't deal with.

And ending the slave trade took centuries and a great deal of imperial power and gunboat diplomacy.

Your post WW2 solution would be similar to expecting everyone to just agree to end slavery in a fortnight because it's the right thing to do.

It was the qualifier I attached to my earlier statement. Feel free to argue with the premise of international treaties as valid foundation for diplomatic interaction.

Generally a treaty should be agreed upon by the parties involved, not by 3rd parties based on realpolitik

There is no such thing as a "rightful overlord" - that's what I've been trying to tell you from the start.
Imperialism is an inherently oppressive system that inevitably leads to global destruction.

WW1 should have already taught us that, but apparently it taught most of us that imperialism is fine as long as we are being dominated by the "rightful" imperialistic overlord.

Unfortunately, humans don't behave in the way you think they "should".

And if you don't want an overlord, it's better you can defend yourself. If you want peace, prepare for war.

"Human nature" is a great excuse to not have to think about alternatives and to never raise one's hand against injustice or atrocity. Ultimately, though, it is an intellectually hollow concept that does not offer us anything but a readimade justification for oppression, genocide, and slavery.

Ignoring human nature in favour of magical thinking and pie in the sky idealism doesn't lead to peace and prosperity either though.

As I said, saying we can solve the problem of collective human irrationality by proposing a solution that assumes human rationality is ludicrous.

Well, then I guess you can't complain if Putin's Russia were to invade Ukraine - after all, they would simply be obeying their base human nature like all of us do, and there is now way the Putin regime could have acted any differently!

You miss the point again.

You can criticise any incidence of violence without assuming that we can magically rid the violent tendency from our collective nature.

 

[Kooky]

You can criticise any incidence of violence without assuming that we can magically rid the violent tendency from our collective nature.

Of course, it is useful to signal to others on whose overlord's side you are on, in the case of that overlord's victory.

If we accept that it is human nature to oppress and enslave others, to murder entire populations for spurious justifications of "national security" or economic gain, then criticizism of people following their human nature is useful as propaganda and virtue signalling for status gain.

After all, we might get a treat if we prove to be useful slaves to our masters.

 

[Augustus]

Of course, it is useful to signal to others on whose overlord's side you are on, in the case of that overlord's victory.

If we accept that it is human nature to oppress and enslave others, to murder entire populations for spurious justifications of "national security" or economic gain, then criticizism of people following their human nature is useful as propaganda and virtue signalling for status gain.

After all, we might get a treat if we prove to be useful slaves to our masters.

I have absolutely no idea what you are on about, but once again it has nothing to do with anything I've said.

You genuinely don't see a difference between:

a) For a variety of reasons, collective human nature means that some degree of violence in society is inevitable. As such, attempts to mitigate the harms that result this aspect of our nature must account for this tendency as we search for the least bad option.

b) Because violence is part of our collective nature, we must accept all violence in every situation as natural and inevitable. As such, opposing it is "virtue signalling". Unless one accepts humans are innately peaceful and we can end all violence and live in perfect harmony, one must happily endorse violence.

 

[Kooky]

b) Because violence is part of our collective nature, we must accept all violence in every situation as natural and inevitable. As such, opposing it is "virtue signalling". Unless one accepts humans are innately peaceful and we can end all violence and live in perfect harmony, one must happily endorse violence.

I mean, what other option do we have? You've established that it is impossible to prevent war, and that it is impossible to create a system more just and less violent than a system of nation-state conquest and genocidal destruction.



It is clear from your premise that human behavior cannot be changed in the slightest, that no amount of criticism will make humans less violent and wars of imperialism less likely, and that no amount of effort will diminish the likelihood of imperialist wars and our eventual nuclear destruction.

You implied as much when you mocked my insistence that co-operation between different military powers could ever actually happen, and when you laughed at the idea that humans could ever not enslave one another.

So what solution, in this position you have constructed, do we have, other than shrugging and doing nothing? What use is there to rail against our human nature, against genetics and destiny? None whatsoever.

Co-operation is impossible. All peace is a temporary lull before predatory conquest.
War is inevitable and cannot be prevented, only delayed, and the system of nuclear alliance ensures that it will eventually escalate into the global nuclear annihilation of human civilization.



Might as well stop worrying and love the bomb, eh?

As such, attempts to mitigate the harms that result this aspect of our nature must account for this tendency as we search for the least bad option.

Would you mind pointing out where you mentioned mitigating the harm caused by war?
I can't find the passage where you brought up this argument.

 

[Augustus]

Would you mind pointing out where you mentioned mitigating the harm caused by war?
I can't find the passage where you brought up this argument.

Once we accept wars will always exist, we have to consider the best way to mitigate them, might not be the way we would try to remove them if that were possible.

On size fits all global governance will cause problems. Arguably we need less integration and less centralisation, 'live and let live' rather than 'one big happy family'.

How to end wars is the wrong question. What we should ask is how do we create a world where we can dislike others and their way of life without resorting to violence.

It is clear from your premise that human behavior cannot be changed in the slightest, that no amount of criticism will make humans less violent and wars of imperialism less likely, and that no amount of effort will diminish the likelihood of imperialist wars and our eventual nuclear destruction.

Again you are resorting to fallacious reasoning.

Saying humans, to some extent, will always be violent as it is part of our evolutuonary make up is not the same as saying human behaviour can never be changed in any way.

So what solution, in this position you have constructed, do we have, other than shrugging and doing nothing? What use is there to rail against our human nature, against genetics and destiny? None whatsoever.

Fallacious reasoning as above.

Co-operation is impossible

And again.

Saying there are limitations to the degree which we can cooperate effectively on a global scale over long time periods is not the same as saying "cooperation is impossible".

You implied as much when you mocked my insistence that co-operation between different military powers could ever actually happen, and when you laughed at the idea that humans could ever not enslave one another.

And again.

I found your idea that the USSR and the UK/France could have found some wonderful cooperative solution to collectively administer Germany and live in harmony together without feeling threatened was fantastical.

Obviously some degree of cooperation has and does happen in other situations.

Where do you get the slavery thing from?

 

[Kooky]

Again you are resorting to fallacious reasoning.

Saying humans, to some extent, will always be violent as it is part of our evolutuonary make up is not the same as saying human behaviour can never be changed in any way.

Then I'm glad we agree that positive change and peaceful co-operation are possible, even if it takes a lot of effort, and that any such effort would be preferable over the inevitable escalation of destruction brought upon by out-of-control notions of mutual military deterrence.

How do you think such co-operation would be best achieved in an atmosphere of mutual distrust?

 

[Augustus]

How do you think such co-operation would be best achieved in an atmosphere of mutual distrust?

Decentralised systems of federated "City states" rather than centralised nations and mutual non-interference in other countries' affairs.

Localisation reduces threat of nationalism and but remains part of a federation for defence purposes (as well as reducing divisions and partisanship within nations).

Hopefully this would create a positive long term trend, but it does not assume others will necessarily leave you alone if you leave them alone.

Limited international organisations to facilitate cooperation.

Regional defensive military alliances would probably help too.

The question is "how to minimise violence and conflict in a world full of people with differing interests and values who often dislike each other? " , as opposed to "how can we end war and make everyone get along harmoniously?"

How would you go about it?

 

[Kooky]

Decentralised systems of federated "City states" rather than centralised nations and mutual non-interference in other countries' affairs.

Localisation reduces threat of nationalism and but remains part of a federation for defence purposes (as well as reducing divisions and partisanship within nations).

Hopefully this would create a positive long term trend, but it does not assume others will necessarily leave you alone if you leave them alone.

Limited international organisations to facilitate cooperation.

Regional defensive military alliances would probably help too.

The question is "how to minimise violence and conflict in a world full of people with differing interests and values who often dislike each other? " , as opposed to "how can we end war and make everyone get along harmoniously?"

How would you go about it?

We've had a millenium of ever increased centralization and empowerment of governments. I don't think we will be able to essentially roll all of that back, not with the entire world economy hinging on these centralized, nationalized structures.

Decentralization in and of itself also doesn't solve the fundamental problem at the heart of the nation state's genesis: That a large, centralized state will ultimately win out in a military conflict with a smaller, less centralized one.

Your city state model was made militarily obsolete in the Hellenistic era in Europe, and then, once again, with the invention of gunpowder warfare and Italian forts, and then, once again, with the Industrial Revolution, railroads, highways, and massive, mechanized, mobile armies of hundreds of thousands or even millions, and then, once again, by the high tech armies of modern nuclear superpowers that are so expensive that most smaller nations can't even afford them at this point.

What we need is a system that obsoletes, or at least strongly hinders, the viability of military conflict to begin with. I know I sound like a broken clock at this point, but the international solidarity of the working class is the only vehicle I see as a way to move forward towards greater co-operation, rather towards increased conflict.

Your decentralized world may or may not happen as a consequence of that development, but I strongly doubt that it would precede it.

 

[Augustus]

Your city state model was made militarily obsolete in the Hellenistic era in Europe, and then, once again, with the invention of gunpowder warfare and Italian forts, and then, once again, with the Industrial Revolution, railroads, highways, and massive, mechanized, mobile armies of hundreds of thousands or even millions, and then, once again, by the high tech armies of modern nuclear superpowers that are so expensive that most smaller nations can't even afford them at this point.

That's why they remain part of nations for the purpose of defence.

Decentralisation, not independence.

What we need is a system that obsoletes, or at least strongly hinders, the viability of military conflict to begin with. I know I sound like a broken clock at this point, but the international solidarity of the working class is the only vehicle I see as a way to move forward towards greater co-operation, rather towards increased conflict.

How do you envision this solidarity manifesting itself? What is the vehicle that will limit the viability of military action?

Globalistic policies, seem to be more a preserve of the liberal middle class than working class.

 

[Kooky]

That's why they remain part of nations for the purpose of defence.

Decentralisation, not independence.

Then how is the state's capacity for warfare limited at all?

How do you envision this solidarity manifesting itself? What is the vehicle that will limit the viability of military action?

In theory, most people already recognize that warfare is immensely costly to the population of a nation state, but those who oppose war lack the political influence to avoid it. So, what needs to change is whatever it is that incentivizes national regimes and their political establishment to seek out military conflict and operate alongside the logic of escalating military deterrence.

Since our current economics produce strong incentives for warfare and lower levels of military violence, I would argue that we would have to develop an economic system that incentivizes sharing rather than hoarding of scarce resources, and common ownership rather than the territoriality of propertarianism.

 

[Augustus]

Then how is the state's capacity for warfare limited at all?

If most decisions are made locally, about health, education, employment, etc. then hopefully you remove some of the incentive for nationalistic foreign policies.

The smaller the scale of the political unit, the more decisions are about tangible realities that exist in shared experience of the electorate rather than media driven abstractions. The more political discourse is based around abstractions, the greater the potential for charlatanism, demagoguery, nationalism, etc.

A national leader if doing badly at the polls can resort to jingoism as a distraction, whereas this doesn't really work at a local level, and even if it did it is only one locale out of many.

Reducing the power, prestige and relevancy of national level politicians reduces their ability to start wars and bully their party and allies into line, especially if you require such a decision to be ratified by a supermajority of individual municipalities.

In theory, most people already recognize that warfare is immensely costly to the population of a nation state, but those who oppose war lack the political influence to avoid it. So, what needs to change is whatever it is that incentivizes national regimes and their political establishment to seek out military conflict and operate alongside the logic of escalating military deterrence.

Since our current economics produce strong incentives for warfare and lower levels of military violence, I would argue that we would have to develop an economic system that incentivizes sharing rather than hoarding of scarce resources, and common ownership rather than the territoriality of propertarianism.

On what kind of scale? National? Regional? Global?