I don't know if this would be a highly controversial opinion here, but I think that teaching people about the horrors of war isn't what stops war. It is the governments feeling the pain of war, such that they enact safeguards against easily going to war, and established norms to prevent the slaughter of civilians.
I may be mistaken, but I rarely see good faith efforts to, say, curtail the unchecked ability of the executive power to simply plunge into a de facto war without much direct authorization, or to use weapons such as the atomic bomb against civilians.
Let me add: visualizations like this are important, I think. I am not arguing against these, I'm just saying these probably don't produce political change.
Before World War 1, there was a (relative) period of some peace, and something insane happened - people started glorifying war. The idea of war bringing out the "real" in a person, or skimming off the excess of society was a thing.
Then of course, once mustard gas is rolling through your neighborhood, glorifying war seems rather stupid.
People are dumb forgetful creatures, but it's important to keep well in mind that war is terrible and horrible, and we as people never want it. Public opinion won't prevent another war from happening ever, but it will make war much harder to argue for.
My view is that the images from Hiroshima and Nagasaki allowed people to see the destructive power of these weapons and the horrors of the wounds inflicted. It’s my strong belief that those images that prevented nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union. I also strongly believe that without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we’d have seen nuclear exchanges between nation states.
I think you are very naive if you think the images of survivors didn’t do anything to prevent nuclear war. Of course there is no “evidence” because how could you prove something like this. Also it’s your own bias and perhaps your politics that leads you to believe that I’m rationalizing.
I didn't say that images didn't do anything. In addition, I would expect someone to call me naive, not for what I wrote, but rather if I'd thought that what stops powerful people from doing horrible things are images of suffering civilians.
It’s my strong belief that those images that prevented nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union.
I'm going to guess it's more because neither government was willing to find out if they could survive the other side's nuclear attack. Who wants to rule a country with all the major cities destroyed, transportation recked, the economy in ruins, massive humanitarian crises, etc.
We could study this, right? Simply ask soldiers what the their combat experience was like and also what they think about nations starting wars, and see if there's a relationship between how much they've been exposed to the "horrors of war" however you define it and how they feel about war in general.
I'm saying convincing the people that war is bad doesn't stop wars. For example at the start of WWII the German people were not enthusiastic about starting another war. That was not enough to stop it.
The prisoner's dilemma demonstrates how decisions that are individually rational can create worse outcomes collectively. The incentives for the individual {prisoner,nation} are not compatible with larger group dynamics.
The solution is to create an environment where individual decision makers are strongly incentivized to make decisions that are collectively beneficial. This is where modern telecommunication technology and - in spite of it's problems - economic globalization can help a lot: nobody wants to drop bombs (atomic or conventional) on another country if their friends or business partners live there.
How do Russia's actions in Crimea fit into this model? In fact, I'd argue they invaded exactly because they had close close economic ties to the area. This is kind of what I'm referring to -- the rest of Europe wants to avoid war and Russia takes advantage by making aggressive military moves.
How many bombs did Russia drop on Crimea during that invasion?
Russia may have had ties to local areas like Crimea, but the are not as integrated economically and socially on a global scale. Compared to e.g. US/EU relations, a lot of people in the US still see Russia as suspicious/hostile.
Russia's attempts to disguise their initial presence with astroturf "popular support" is an example of the country being increasingly aware of how they appear on the international stage. Bombs become less appealing as the economic cost of pissing off the rest of the world grows. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of work to do to create that goal.
Comments
I don't know if this would be a highly controversial opinion here, but I think that teaching people about the horrors of war isn't what stops war. It is the governments feeling the pain of war, such that they enact safeguards against easily going to war, and established norms to prevent the slaughter of civilians.
I may be mistaken, but I rarely see good faith efforts to, say, curtail the unchecked ability of the executive power to simply plunge into a de facto war without much direct authorization, or to use weapons such as the atomic bomb against civilians.
Let me add: visualizations like this are important, I think. I am not arguing against these, I'm just saying these probably don't produce political change.
Before World War 1, there was a (relative) period of some peace, and something insane happened - people started glorifying war. The idea of war bringing out the "real" in a person, or skimming off the excess of society was a thing.
Then of course, once mustard gas is rolling through your neighborhood, glorifying war seems rather stupid.
People are dumb forgetful creatures, but it's important to keep well in mind that war is terrible and horrible, and we as people never want it. Public opinion won't prevent another war from happening ever, but it will make war much harder to argue for.
As events in 2000-2003 have taught us, it's quite easy to sway public opinion in favor of war, even more so when it's largely not on your own soil.
And easy to continue it, when the costs are so readily ignored.
Iraq/Afghanistan have been much longer than Vietnam for a very obvious reason.
My view is that the images from Hiroshima and Nagasaki allowed people to see the destructive power of these weapons and the horrors of the wounds inflicted. It’s my strong belief that those images that prevented nuclear war between the US and the Soviet Union. I also strongly believe that without Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we’d have seen nuclear exchanges between nation states.
I can't read this in any other way than just speculation for which the primary purpose is to act as a comforting rationalization to what happened.
I think you are very naive if you think the images of survivors didn’t do anything to prevent nuclear war. Of course there is no “evidence” because how could you prove something like this. Also it’s your own bias and perhaps your politics that leads you to believe that I’m rationalizing.
I didn't say that images didn't do anything. In addition, I would expect someone to call me naive, not for what I wrote, but rather if I'd thought that what stops powerful people from doing horrible things are images of suffering civilians.
I'm going to guess it's more because neither government was willing to find out if they could survive the other side's nuclear attack. Who wants to rule a country with all the major cities destroyed, transportation recked, the economy in ruins, massive humanitarian crises, etc.
Ugh in part because of the images from Hiroshima/Nagasaki.
We could study this, right? Simply ask soldiers what the their combat experience was like and also what they think about nations starting wars, and see if there's a relationship between how much they've been exposed to the "horrors of war" however you define it and how they feel about war in general.
I'm saying convincing the people that war is bad doesn't stop wars. For example at the start of WWII the German people were not enthusiastic about starting another war. That was not enough to stop it.
It's a prisoner's dilemma. It only works if all nations agree to curtail aggression.
The prisoner's dilemma demonstrates how decisions that are individually rational can create worse outcomes collectively. The incentives for the individual {prisoner,nation} are not compatible with larger group dynamics.
The solution is to create an environment where individual decision makers are strongly incentivized to make decisions that are collectively beneficial. This is where modern telecommunication technology and - in spite of it's problems - economic globalization can help a lot: nobody wants to drop bombs (atomic or conventional) on another country if their friends or business partners live there.
How do Russia's actions in Crimea fit into this model? In fact, I'd argue they invaded exactly because they had close close economic ties to the area. This is kind of what I'm referring to -- the rest of Europe wants to avoid war and Russia takes advantage by making aggressive military moves.
How many bombs did Russia drop on Crimea during that invasion?
Russia may have had ties to local areas like Crimea, but the are not as integrated economically and socially on a global scale. Compared to e.g. US/EU relations, a lot of people in the US still see Russia as suspicious/hostile.
Russia's attempts to disguise their initial presence with astroturf "popular support" is an example of the country being increasingly aware of how they appear on the international stage. Bombs become less appealing as the economic cost of pissing off the rest of the world grows. Unfortunately, there is still a lot of work to do to create that goal.