About war

Noriel Sylvire

I got the Homo Deus of Yuval Noah Harari. It caught my attention from the first time I heard about it.
So I began reading and it said "War is obsolete. It is most likely for one to take his/her own life than to die in a belic conflict." (My own translation of my copy which is in spanish)

This caught my attention as I always thought that a third world war was improbable and a nuclear war was almost imposible for there is no one so blind and suicidal to start one.

My friends in school always talk about how we will all fall in a nuclear war some day and I always reply that is the most improbable of war scenarios. They always treated me like I was crazy and uncultivated because I couldn't apreciate the destructive power of those weapons. I quit discussing. But my opinion stays the same. It is more probable in my opinion to be an "economic war" or whatever else than a nuclear war. It is not like at the first small incident they will start bombing each other with pure death and even expect the other to just not respond or to surrender. That thought is childish. It would be a catastrophe and every leader in the world knows it. That is why every one of them is so cautious of what words to use with each other so that that doesn't happen ever.

It is also true that we humans are at our most peaceful era ever. In the past there were not only constant wars but several simultaneous wars all the time. But now, except from Iraq, Syria and Vietnam, which are not world powers like The Roman Empire, China, India, France, or Germany at all, there haven't been big wars in the world since 1945. The cold war doesn't count. And even counting all those, there would have been only one war at the same time in the world and involving not exclusively world powers, all with a gap of some decades of full world peace. We truly are at our most peaceful era.

I even think that at this rate, diseases will concern much more people than war.

So yes, I agree with the first statement of the book, and it surprised me that I wansn't the only one thinking that way.

I really think this peace is caused by science, globalisation and the right to express one self.
I don't even judge so improbable a scenario in which my country declared war on say russia and many people would rally in the streets in manifestation against war. And it is normal, I don't want war on my fellow humans. Even if there is a tragic event involving both countries I think we are able to understand and forgive. I am not fool. I know that if governments wanted war on some country they would instigate hate on people so that they aprove war. I even think this is the case with muslim countries. All of the people I know think all muslims and syrians are talibans, terrorists. But anyways I still believe there is hope for a new era of world peace. Even some day it would be possible that war would be just a myth, or a historic fact that nobody thinks of. Oh my, I really want to read Homo Deus hahah.

Lastly but not least, I love science, and I love technolody, I really like how this is called the information era but it would be cool to find it a name that also involves world peace, so that people start assimilating it, though deciding this era's name is the duty of the generations to come.

We should really talk with people about this, make them feel less american, chinese or syrian and more human. If everyone seeks peace there is no possibility for war, they can't force people to fight, and with no people there is no soldiers, ergo no war.

Last, I apologize for my level of english, I am still learning. I invite you to please correct any mistakes I made.

Well then, what do you think? Am I really just dreaming? Do you agree with me that this is the most peaceful era and should continue being so? Any review or critique to make?

Uneducated Pleb

It is also true that we humans are at our most peaceful era ever — Noriel Sylvire

How is that conclusion arrived at?

All of the people I know think all muslims and syrians are talibans, terrorists. But anyways I still believe there is hope for a new era of world peace. — Noriel Sylvire

So how is your belief supported in the face of the exact opposite anecdotal evidence?

ssu

Nouriel, you aren't alone with that opinion. Many people have noted that there is less conflict than before and the conflict is less lethal. And this is argued by the simple statistic that less people are killed in wars than earlier.

I personally am not so sure about it. War is something in our midst even today.

First, when you compare any conflicts or any era to WW1 and WW2, you get a downward trend. Perhaps only the Mongol Invasions were more lethal to humanity (on a percentage level). What is basically shocking is that many of these statistics simply ignore the most lethal conflict of our time (the First and Second Congo wars 1996-2003) that hade several million people dying. But if the conflict results in people largely dying of starvation and disease (and only in the hundreds of thousands being killed in the battlefield), guess for these people arguing how peacefull we have come it doesn't count.

Second, what is totally underestimated is how much battlefield medicine has improved in our time. Soldiers aren't killed anymore of diseases and if earlier the death to wounded ratio was 1:3, now it's far higher. In Iraq the US suffered over 4 000 combat deaths, but over 30 000 were wounded. Hence the body count would be far higher for American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan if battlefield medicine would be on the level of the Vietnam war or earlier. Also the West has used a warfighting strategy which actually does seek to limit civilian deaths: If in the US war in Afghanistan it's estimated that about 31 000 civilians have died, compare it to the Soviet invasion which lasted far less time yet killed about 1 million civilians. That the Soviet Union used the ancient Roman tactic of creating artificial deserts and forcing millions into exile in order to take away the logistical support of the insurgents tells how different that war was compared to this one.

And third, which is the most politically incorrect and most opposed answer: the presence of nuclear weapons has prevented all out wars as in the past. Yet this argument has truth to it: not only with the US and Russia, but also with India and Pakistan, the presence of a nuclear deterrence on both sides has severely limited the scope of armed clashes that the countries have engaged in. And at least until now, the same logic can be seen in conflict between North Korea and the United States (which have only a ceasefire, but no peace).

When only one side has nuclear weapons (like with the example of Israel and Arab states), the state with nuclear weapons can and has launched wars with impunity.

Naturally nobody arguing that the World has become a better more peaceful place will say it is because of nuclear weapons. But there is this twisted logic, and even there have been a lot of close calls with nukes and the possibility of an accidental nuclear war, this sword of Damocles does limit just how eager our leaders are to go to war.

Uneducated Pleb

argued by the simple statistic that less people are killed in wars than earlier. — ssu

If you are quoting Pinker's approach, I believe professional anthropology has a more accurate answer to that "simple statistic".

https://www.sapiens.org/culture/violence-steven-pinker-doomsday/

and from the abstract of their paper:
"In The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, psychologist Steven Pinker cites mean ratios of war (battle) deaths suffered annually per 100,000 individuals as evidence for concluding that people who live in states are less violent than those who live or lived in “hunting, gathering, and horticultural societies in which our species spent most of its evolutionary history.” Because such ratios are blind to actual population sizes, it remains to be seen whether the apparent decrease in contemporary violence is an artifact of scaling factors...Mean annual battle deaths expressed as percentages of population sizes scale inversely with population sizes in chimpanzees and humans, indicating increased vulnerability rather than increased violence in smaller populations. However, the absolute number of mean annual war deaths increases exponentially (superlinearly) and nearly identically with population sizes across human groups but not chimpanzees. These findings suggest that people evolved to be more violent than chimpanzees and that humans from nonstates are neither more nor less violent than those from states."

ssu

If you are quoting Pinker's approach, I believe professional anthropology has a more accurate answer to that "simple statistic". — Uneducated Pleb

Thank's for that article, Uneducated Pleb. There's a lot wrong in Pinkers approach. One of the basic issues is treating modern society in a very simple way. It's a nice message Pinker gives, but really, social sciences are a science, even if not such as biology. As that article says: "The historic data show that members of nonstates were more vulnerable because they lived in small populations—not more violent because they were lacking in “better angels,” such as reason and moral sense."

And anyway, if you just compare wars by battle death suffered annually per 100 000 individuals, that is a really, really simple statistic. Wars and conflicts are very different from each other. War being an extension of politics, as Clausewitz famously noted, should tell this to us. Politics and political decisions are extremely important and aren't just societal: just compare let's say the conflict in Northern Ireland to to the Rwandan Civil War. In the former conflict one side (the government, UK) shows huge constraint in order not to escalate the conflict into full civil war and keep the conflict as a "Time of Troubles" and in the latter one side truly decides on a "Final Solution" option when seeing that it will lose the civil war. The body count quite different, yet without the "Final Solution" that became the Rwandan Genocide, the African Civil War might have been quite "ordinary" with low battle deaths and little media coverage.

TheMadFool

↪Noriel Sylvire

How are you dividing human history? If you do it in small chunks then it's quite obvious you'll see periods of peace and war. Do it in large sections and you'll see something different.

In short your observation of a peaceful ''era'' may be completely arbitrary - a simple artificat of how you did your analysis.

Noriel Sylvire

↪Uneducated Pleb

Well, it is because in the past centuries war was something almost certain for every country. Maybe your country was not at war in the moment, but some other country was. Constant war here or there. But now and since 1945, almost 70 years of world peace. I don't say this will last forever (but lets hope so), but this is a historical record, never before achieved by humanity.
That is why I say we are at our most peaceful era. Right now coca cola and it's deadly sugars are a lot more dangerous to more people then al Qaeda or whatever violence act. (Literaly quoting Harari)

This 70 year peace steak is very relevant and important. Now, after some generations that lived in peace, war seems just not possible anymore and it is even less profitable than other things. It is simply not worth it for Germany to attack Poland when many people there buys their Volkswagen cars. Many companies would get upset.

So I don't find that affirmation so far from reality.

Noriel Sylvire

↪ssu

I found the second paragraph very interesting. I agree with all you said.
And yes, it is quite ironic that the most dangerous weapon in history has made the world more peaceful

I really want to learn more, please correct me in every way possible.

Noriel Sylvire

↪TheMadFool

Well, I don't actually mean this is the start of a new era, as I said it is responsibility of the generations to come to decide that. I just compared peace times between wars with this peace period.
In the history, peace wasjust a period between wars. A person with a bussines would have to have war in it's plans at all time. One could never know when a war would start.
In comparison, this peace period, and peace itself now is seen as the normal state of the world and wars at least from my, my classmates' and my friends' point of view are just periods of discord and chaos floating by. Obviously this is not the case, at least not yet, but it is seen like that. What I try to say is that the meaning itself of the word peace has changed from "At the moment we are safe but I don't know about tomorrow" to "This is the way things should be"

Also even if in the past one country was not as war, there will always be some others at war.

Also war was so common before that sometimes, when countries are powerful enogh, there could be several wars going on at the same time. And if not war there will always be some violent incidents going on.
I read about Egypt from the first dynasty to the Sesostris III for now, and all pharaohs always had violence problems in various front's at the same time. At least Bedouins to the north, and Nubians to the south were a problem for every pharaoh and all of them had to send some troops to "Pacify" rebellions. There were also some other problematic tribes and Asians.
So they had several violence problems at the same time.

However, now peace does not mean "My country is in peace with some other" but "The entire planet is in peace". And when a war begins somewhere, we are no longer at peace.

That is something that have never happened before. Periods of whole world peace.

That is not irrelevant at all. That is why I say we are in the most peaceful era ever, because it looks to me that this world peace periods could only be broken by incidents in one country at the same time, meanwhile the rest of the world would just watch horrorised and say "What a terrible thing". It looks like this is going to last a long time.

For me, this is so big of a change that I think it will even grow bigger. That is why I dream about some day when people look back on wars and say "That is no more"

T Clark

Well, it is because in the past centuries war was something almost certain for every country. Maybe your country was not at war in the moment, but some other country was. Constant war here or there. But now and since 1945, almost 70 years of world peace. I don't say this will last forever (but lets hope so), but this is a historical record, never before achieved by humanity.
That is why I say we are at our most peaceful era. Right now coca cola and it's deadly sugars are a lot more dangerous to more people then al Qaeda or whatever violence act. (Literaly quoting Harari) — Noriel Sylvire

Another way to look at it. If a war like World War II happened every 50 years, that would make 100 million dead per century. Humanity's power has increased to the point that we can destroy everything. If the next big war will kill 5 billion, the frequency would only have to be once every 500 years to equal the death toll.

Uneducated Pleb

But now and since 1945, almost 70 years of world peace...but this is a historical record, never before achieved by humanity... — Noriel Sylvire

Hmmm. How does that square with this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1945%E2%80%9389
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_1990%E2%80%932002
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2003%E2%80%9310
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_2011%E2%80%93present

And to be transparent - I do not consider a "political" definition of "war", "action", and "conflict" (among other monikers) to be a demarcation that exists in the world or in pragmatic body counts. With that said, there are other sources of conflict that are not even mentioned in the links above.

Groups that organize violence towards other groups over ideology, political dominance, resource access, etc are, for me, fair game. With that said - organized crime "turf wars" can fall under the same umbrella of "war" or "conflict" as it is merely a degree of population size of the group. Those expressions of violence and deaths do not get recorded and are absent from this discussion (though I mention them because they easily could be). How about America's "War on Terror"? Would there even be an "official death toll" recorded for that?

Right now coca cola and it's deadly sugars are a lot more dangerous to more people then al Qaeda or whatever violence act. (Literaly quoting Harari) — Noriel Sylvire

That may be a quote from Harari, but I am not sure how exposure to the health effects of sugar can be used to support the conclusion that the world is "less violent".

war seems just not possible anymore and it is even less profitable than other things. It is simply not worth it for Germany to attack Poland when many people there buys their Volkswagen cars. — Noriel Sylvire

? History and current events show a different reality. The US weapons exports alone topped (in 2015) $16.9 billion and that is just from straight up sales which don't include other agreement structures. And those weapons went to countries in conflict zones - the Middle East, South America, Africa. Conflict creates great customers - of everything from weapons to vehicles to food and water. There are also politcal and other economic benefits, so being "worth it" needs some clarification here.

How was it worth it for Russia to invade the Ukraine? How was it worth it got the US to invade Iraq and Afghanistan? How is it worth it for Spain to supress Catalonian political independence? How was it worth it for ISIS to fight for the creation of a new Caliphate? How was it worth it for the US and Russia to be both involved in the Syrian Civil War?

Noriel Sylvire

↪Uneducated Pleb

Hehe seems I didn't really explore this sufficiently.
I still believe we are in a more peaceful time than the previous centuries, but I need to further investigate all this.
Thank's for all the interesting information and links!
It is really not fair to just ignore organised crime and other things here, but I really not know enough about it to even dare talk about it.
In school we are taught World War Two is the last big war, then some periods of world peace until you know, Vietnam, Iraq, and the important ones. Some civil wars here and there, and what we hear on the news.

So it seems I have a lot to learn about this. God I am excited! I have studied a lot, a LOT of science, but I have never pay attention to economy, history, politics and philosophy until very recently, which is great, to have so many things to learn! Information era.

Also, how do you do the Quoting thing?
That

"Hello
:)"
- Someone

thing.

Noriel Sylvire

↪T Clark

For now I just hope nothing big happens. I think I can't really say anything else now, I will just reply :)

T Clark

And to be transparent - I do not consider a "political" definition of "war", "action", and "conflict" (among other monikers) to be a demarcation that exists in the world or in pragmatic body counts. With that said, there are other sources of conflict that are not even mentioned in the links above. — Uneducated Pleb

Seems to me the only useful metric that allows any kind of comparison is death count, not number of conflicts. Are there good numbers for that?

I think it would also make sense to evaluate conflicts in terms of how likely they are to have effects outside their countries' boundaries. The Iraq war started by the US destabilized governments and lead to further conflict e.g. ISIS. That has lead to chaos in Syria and Iraq. It also has heavily affected Turkey and most of Europe. Since Turkey is in NATO, it has the potential to bring in the US and other NATO countries against Russia. Another conflict like that is the war in Ukraine.

Uneducated Pleb

Also, how do you do the Quoting thing? — Noriel Sylvire

Highlight the text, hit "Quote". Cheers!

Uneducated Pleb

Seems to me the only useful metric that allows any kind of comparison is death count, — T Clark

It is definitely a constraint in any interpretation. But there are others, I believe. Like the properties that define the group (s): cohesiveness, complexity of hierarchy, technology both material and conceptual, resource availability and other environmental factors, relative added social power from alliances, and so forth. Each variable element intricately feeding back into each other with each iteration.

T Clark

It is definitely a constraint in any interpretation. But there are others, I believe. Like the properties that define the group (s): cohesiveness, complexity of hierarchy, technology both material and conceptual, resource availability and other environmental factors, relative added social power from alliances, and so forth. Each variable element intricately feeding back into each other with each iteration. — Uneducated Pleb

I wasn't saying that is was a simple situation. The opposite in fact. I was saying that, because it is so complex, the only way to simplify it in a meaningful way is to focus on death count. After all, that's what really matters, at least in the broadest sense.

TheMadFool

↪Noriel Sylvire

What I try to say is that the meaning itself of the word peace has changed from "At the moment we are safe but I don't know about tomorrow" to "This is the way things should be" — Noriel Sylvire

You're right. War was an option in the past - expansionism and colonialism happened and were maintained through war. Now, war is a last resort.

ssu

History and current events show a different reality. The US weapons exports alone topped (in 2015) $16.9 billion and that is just from straight up sales which don't include other agreement structures. And those weapons went to countries in conflict zones - the Middle East, South America, Africa. Conflict creates great customers - of everything from weapons to vehicles to food and water. There are also politcal and other economic benefits, so being "worth it" needs some clarification here. — Uneducated Pleb

Exports don't tell much about the whole here, US defence expenditure as the percentage of GDP tells a lot more. And there you can see that the Cold War was far more costly than what we have today.

What was extremely expensive was the nuclear arms race. The amount of nuclear weapons that existed in the World in the 1980's tells just how bizarre it came to be. If there is one peaceful outcome when the Cold War ended, it has to be how we got rid of a huge amount of nuclear weapons. The following table shows btw. why the US generals were so eager to go into Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis. Would it been the late 1980's, no Curtis LeMay would have opted for was as back then in the early 1960's.

The above issues are actually very important to this subject. If we simply just look at battle deaths and wars, we forget just how bellicose times the Cold War was, even if both sides showed restraint when directly facing each other. Even if it was peace, the threat of war was far higher than now. (Even if after Crimea and Ukraine the World has gotten colder again)

About war

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions