NationStates Jolt Archive

NOTE: This article is a real eye-opener. War, it turns out, has been steadily declining for many years. The end of war? One can only hope!


Give Peace a Chance (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/28/opinion/28tierney.html?th&emc=th)

By JOHN TIERNEY
Published: May 28, 2005

You would never guess it from the news, but we're living in a peculiarly tranquil world. The new edition of "Peace and Conflict," a biennial global survey being published next week by the University of Maryland, shows that the number and intensity of wars and armed conflicts have fallen once again, continuing a steady 15-year decline that has halved the amount of organized violence around the world.

Those statistics are no solace for mourners in Iraq and Darfur. But so many other people are now living in peace that you don't have be a dreamer like John Lennon to take seriously the question raised by Gregg Easterbrook in this week's New Republic cover story, "The End of War?"

I posed that question nearly a decade ago to my favorite prophet, Julian Simon, the economist who spent his career refuting doomsayers' predictions. He was convinced that three horsemen of the apocalypse - famine, pestilence, death - were in rapid retreat, and he suspected that the fourth was in trouble, too.

"I predict that the incidence of war will decline," he told me in 1996, two years before his death. He based his prediction on the principle that there is less and less to be gained economically from war. As people get richer and smarter, their lives and their knowledge become far more valuable than the land, minerals and natural resources they used to fight over.

The Iraq war is sometimes described, by both foes and supporters, as a pragmatic venture to keep oil flowing, but not even the most ruthless accountant can justify the expense. Even before the war, America's military costs in the Persian Gulf were much greater than the value of all the oil it was getting from the region, and now it's spending at least four times what the oil's worth.

Of course, wars are also fought for noneconomic reasons, but those, too, seem to be diminishing. The end of the cold war left the superpowers' proxy armies without patrons, and the spread of democracy made nations less bellicose. (Democracies almost never fight each other.) Mr. Easterbrook calculates that the amount of military spending per capita has declined by a third worldwide since 1985.

Meanwhile, the number of people fighting has plummeted, even though population has grown enormously. "From what we know about war, we can only conclude that it's a much lesser problem today," said Monty Marshall of George Mason University, a co-author of the "Peace and Conflict" report. "War between countries is much less likely than ever, and civil war is less likely than any time since 1960."

These benign trends may be hard to believe, especially if you've been watching pictures from Iraq or listening to warnings about terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons. One explosion could indeed change everything.

But before you dismiss the optimists as hopeless naifs, you might ask yourself if you're suffering from the malaise described in a book by Mr. Easterbrook called "The Progress Paradox": the better life gets, the worse people feel. The more peaceful and wealthy the world becomes, the more time we all have to watch wars and warnings on television.

The only antidote is to look at long-term trends instead of daily horrors. For a really long-term trend, consider that of 59 skeletons found in a Stone Age graveyard, at least 24 died from violence. Or that a quarter of the male population died fighting in some pre-agricultural societies.

In the 20th century, despite two world wars, humans had less than a 2 percent chance of dying in war or a mass killing, according to John Mueller, a political scientist at Ohio State. Today the risk is lower still - about a quarter the chance of dying in a car accident.

I mention these numbers not to minimize today's tragedies. I plan to be at a parade on Monday honoring the soldiers who have fallen, especially the more than 1,600 in Iraq. But I will also be thinking about the Progress Paradox and the origin of Memorial Day.

It started after the Civil War as Decoration Day, an occasion for widows wearing red poppies to decorate graves and memorials in virtually every town. If a war of that scale happened now, there would be nearly five million graves to tend. Sixteen-hundred is still too many, but if the trend continues, Memorial Day may eventually become a memory itself.

Pretty interesting, Gramps. :)

The proverbial silence before the storm. Make that "a massive storm".

(Democracies almost never fight each other.)

True, but that doesn't stop democracies from getting involved in conflicts, or starting wars for no good reason. And if anyone is gong to try that "we're spreading democracy in Iraq" turd, please just stop now.

(Democracies almost never fight each other.)

True, but that doesn't stop democracies from getting involved in conflicts, or starting wars for no good reason. And if anyone is gong to try that "we're spreading democracy in Iraq" turd, please just stop now.

We are spreading democracy in Iraq.

The proverbial silence before the storm. Make that "a massive storm".

That is the truth. It was pretty quiet between world wars now wasn't it.

The US is spreading democracy in Iraq, that is 'US Democracy'. The kind were you down have much freedom of speech and elections are in fact an pointless cross in a box every 5 years. Soon the Iraq people will be free to choose one thing.

Actully, via business interests, almost no progress in being done in Iraq. The US has set up it's puppet government with the current Iraqi "president", and the corporations are getting the help of the US tax dollars to clear land to build oil pipelines.

A majority of Baghdad is still in ruin with no intentions of it getting cleaned up.

Remember WWI? Afterwords, many people were trying to attain peace (League of Nations et cetera), but in Germany, where they were feeling the worst shockwaves of the war (Versailles), dissenters like Hitler were trying to regain strenght at all costs. This cost was WWII. Afterword, there has been no major conflict on that proportion. Why? Because they never wanted it to happen a third time. But, over time, people have become restless, so minor skirmishes and small to medium wars have ensued. Where is this going? Simply put it, I feel there will be a World War Three, of such scale everyone will be involved, yet no-one will win, even when it is over. After that, the world will unite under a common purpose and war will be restricted to the history books. Just my rambling prediction.

Good article.Nationalism and religion are the last two major roadblocks to peace.Both can be used too easily to justify atrocities.
And for all those who are secretly hoping for Armaegeddon, education and communication will thwart it.
Peace is far too valuable economically and humanly, as well as environmentally.

Actully, via business interests, almost no progress in being done in Iraq. The US has set up it's puppet government with the current Iraqi "president", and the corporations are getting the help of the US tax dollars to clear land to build oil pipelines.

A majority of Baghdad is still in ruin with no intentions of it getting cleaned up.
You're so wrong you make the liberals look "right." :rolleyes:

This isn't exactly new news. Democracy has been on the rise for 30 years, and wherever there is democracy there is peace. Francis Fukuyama wasn't wrong to write speculating an end to history.

War has been on decline ever since the end of WWII and people who think the world sucks so much now don't realize how good they have it. Just because war in Iraq is making the headline now doesn't mean the world is suddenly ablaze with conflict. There is relatively little war in the world (even though modern weaponry and forgetting the rules of war make them much more cruel) and, unless a major conflict with the Muslim world escalates, which is a distinct possibility, there should be even less war as civilization slowly seeps into the rest of the planet.

Pretty interesting, Gramps. :)
Glad you liked it.

"Gramps," eh? :mp5:

That is the truth. It was pretty quiet between world wars now wasn't it.
If you ignore the Spanish Civil War, the Abyssinian war, the Manchurian crisis and all the other conflicts the League of Nations was involved in. the Russian civil war, Armed rebellions in a number of countries such as Germany.


Yep, real peaceful.

Remember WWI? Afterwords, many people were trying to attain peace (League of Nations et cetera), but in Germany, where they were feeling the worst shockwaves of the war (Versailles), dissenters like Hitler were trying to regain strenght at all costs. This cost was WWII. Afterword, there has been no major conflict on that proportion. Why? Because they never wanted it to happen a third time. But, over time, people have become restless, so minor skirmishes and small to medium wars have ensued. Where is this going? Simply put it, I feel there will be a World War Three, of such scale everyone will be involved, yet no-one will win, even when it is over. After that, the world will unite under a common purpose and war will be restricted to the history books. Just my rambling prediction.I think you're seriously underestimating the nuclear portion of this topic. World War III didn't happen because people suddenly wanted an end to war--higher-ups in the US government wanted a push against the Soviets right after the end of WWII, but saner minds prevailed. During the Cuban missile crisis, LeMay wanted full-scale nuclear war, but again, saner heads prevailed--and it wasn't because Kennedy was a dove. Kennedy was as hawkish as anyone--but he saw that a nuclear conflict might be the last one that anyone ever fought.

That's the thing about the MAD theory--it actually worked in terms of heading off another large-scale conflict, but it resulted in dozens of proxy-wars fought all over the world, especially in the middle east. The same is true of the conflict between India and Pakistan--ever since both countries went nuclear, the fighting between them has been little but border skirmishes, largely because both sides know that major war means destruction on a scale so vase that neither side can bear it.

I personally doubt that we'll see another war on the scale of WWII, simply because world leaders know that the second massive armies go in the field and one side gets desperate, a nuke will fly and then it's all over. We'll continue to see what we see now--wars fought in small countries over natural resources.

We are spreading democracy in Iraq.
We're spreading something, but it ain't democracy. What we're spreading usually requires a manure fork and a strong stomach.

Here's a little trend: About once every 15-30 years, America goes to war, or gets in a major conflict.

2003-Iraqi War
1990-Gulf War
1970's-Vietnam
Early 1950's-North Korea
1940's-WWII(This one breaks teh mold)
Late 1910's-WWI
1890's-Spanish American War
1860's Civil War
etc
etc

It's a definate trend. We have not gone one generation without war. Interesting, huh? Just because there is a BRIEF moment of lessoned fighting, does not mean perpetual peace. Also, today's wars are not fought the same as they were decades ago. Special ops, remote controlled armor, bombing,missiles, and other "nonconventional" conventional warfare is being used. Simply put, the need for ground troops is dropping(We always need them, but not in the same quantity as before).

Where there's Democracy there's peace, huh?

Glad you liked it.

"Gramps," eh? :mp5:

Yep. Gotta probl'm wit' dat? ;)

Here's a little trend: About once every 15-30 years, America goes to war, or gets in a major conflict.

2003-Iraqi War
1990-Gulf War
1970's-Vietnam
Early 1950's-North Korea
1940's-WWII(This one breaks teh mold)
Late 1910's-WWI
1890's-Spanish American War
1860's Civil War
etc
etc

It's a definate trend. We have not gone one generation without war. Interesting, huh? Just because there is a BRIEF moment of lessoned fighting, does not mean perpetual peace. Also, today's wars are not fought the same as they were decades ago. Special ops, remote controlled armor, bombing,missiles, and other "nonconventional" conventional warfare is being used. Simply put, the need for ground troops is dropping(We always need them, but not in the same quantity as before).

Where there's Democracy there's peace, huh?

Don't forget Kosovo and Somalia, in addition to several minor incidents (Lebanon in the late 50s and early 80s, Grenada in 1983, Dominican Republic in 1965, etc.)

Francis Fukuyama

If my last name were "Fuck yo mama", I would so change it.

Don't forget Kosovo and Somalia, in addition to several minor incidents (Lebanon in the late 50s and early 80s, Grenada in 1983, Dominican Republic in 1965, etc.)

I think the idea was conflicts that lasted more than a month or three...

I read it this morning in the NY Times, and I agree that he's onto something.

We're spreading something, but it ain't democracy. What we're spreading usually requires a manure fork and a strong stomach.
Oh, you mean kinda like reading your posts, eh? :rolleyes:

Yep. Gotta probl'm wit' dat? ;)
:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5:

Nahh. Not me! :D

I don't see things in Africa and parts of Asia improving in some time now.

You know, when i first read this topic, i read:

The end of the world? Maybe so!

Coincidentially, the end of war happens to be a kind of 'end of world' for certain people... :rolleyes:

The end of war? No.

A brief respite?

Perhaps.

I bet you there were people predicting the end of war during the Pax Romana. Whoops.

Here's a little trend: About once every 15-30 years, America goes to war, or gets in a major conflict.

2003-Iraqi War
1990-Gulf War
1970's-Vietnam
Early 1950's-North Korea
1940's-WWII(This one breaks teh mold)
Late 1910's-WWI
1890's-Spanish American War
1860's Civil War
etc
etc

It's a definate trend. We have not gone one generation without war. Interesting, huh? Just because there is a BRIEF moment of lessoned fighting, does not mean perpetual peace. Also, today's wars are not fought the same as they were decades ago. Special ops, remote controlled armor, bombing,missiles, and other "nonconventional" conventional warfare is being used. Simply put, the need for ground troops is dropping(We always need them, but not in the same quantity as before).

Where there's Democracy there's peace, huh?

First of all, for all the history buffs, let's go even farther back -
1812, War of 1812
1776, Revolutionary War
1750s?roundabout, I don't remember - French and Indian War
and before that there wasn't enough "America" to get involved in a war. Besides the fact that skirmishes and rivalires with French, Spanish, Dutch, even Swedish colonies were still prevalent. So we've really always been a fightin' nation. We aren't violent by any means, but we do like to fight. And I personally like to fight. Think of the primary way to human tribes to gain a leader, alpha male or whatever - whoever wins the fight. Humans are rivalrous people who enjoy fighitng. Go watch Fight Club. I myself will mourn the day war leaves this planet. We must have a way to release our stress/rage/anger/pent up emotions and baggage, and fighting does this well. What's fencing/sparring good for if not for this? And what is more glorious than dying in battle fighting one's enemies? Nothing, I say, and I only wish the Hall of Walhalla really existed. Modern warfare is totally raping the sh*t out of what war is supposed to be. Man vs. man, the primal struggle for dominance/survival/fun is no longer there, esp. with all that new technology that saves lives and stuff. All good and well, but what about this instinctive, animal need I feel to fight. Just to plain ol', down and dirty, throw some punches and match myself against another human being blood for blood and sweat for sweat. I point to the Aztecs as a good example of wise people - they conquered all their enemies, and were left with no real wars to fight, so they had their Rose Wars or whatever they called them, where their subjects were allowed to raise "play-armies" of soldiers with clubs and bludgeoning tools, to incapacitate but not kill. Then they would fight for human sacrifices. Sure, it's inhumane, but conquering a people and simply demanding human sacrifices would have been much more so. They couldn't just not sacrifice humans, it was their religion which was also their way of life. I predict that if we don't have the customary large war on schedule, and War does hide away in the corners of history books, that America will not be the Rome I currently interpret it to be, but a new Tenochtitlán, engaging in skirmishes with rivals just to keep the militants and dissenters in line. Maybe I'm just too battle-starved and have seen too many Troy/LOTR/Kingdom of Heaven/King Arthur/Last Samurai movies where a pitched battle is always fought and people throw their whole lives into the fray. All I can say is, Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. Someone tell me what est is in the past tense, like in Spanish es to fue but in Latin. Thanks

I think you're seriously underestimating the nuclear portion of this topic. World War III didn't happen because people suddenly wanted an end to war--higher-ups in the US government wanted a push against the Soviets right after the end of WWII, but saner minds prevailed. During the Cuban missile crisis, LeMay wanted full-scale nuclear war, but again, saner heads prevailed--and it wasn't because Kennedy was a dove. Kennedy was as hawkish as anyone--but he saw that a nuclear conflict might be the last one that anyone ever fought.

That's the thing about the MAD theory--it actually worked in terms of heading off another large-scale conflict, but it resulted in dozens of proxy-wars fought all over the world, especially in the middle east. The same is true of the conflict between India and Pakistan--ever since both countries went nuclear, the fighting between them has been little but border skirmishes, largely because both sides know that major war means destruction on a scale so vase that neither side can bear it.

I personally doubt that we'll see another war on the scale of WWII, simply because world leaders know that the second massive armies go in the field and one side gets desperate, a nuke will fly and then it's all over. We'll continue to see what we see now--wars fought in small countries over :fluffle: natural resources.

OK I see how it is, you think that WWII was big eh? well you may as well take this feature and run with it because this must be how you see conflicts between countries now!! :fluffle:

War has become a powder keg that keeps getting bigger and bigger with each new destructive technology. Everybody is afraid to light the fuse, because they know that once the ICBMs are launched there's no going back.

But there's always that one idiot in the group who lights the fuse anyways just to see what happens. As more and more nations get nukes and start their own mini-cold wars, we'll see just what the probability of pushing that red button is.

And as for the MAD hypothesis, that's why Hiram Maxim invented the machine-gun: to make war so ugly nobody would want to fight it. oops