< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://davejustus.com/" >

Monday, May 23, 2005

The End of War?

This article in The New Republic Online is interesting reading. It argues that the number of wars, and the global risk of dying in war, have gone down steadily since 1991. While many reasons are explored, there is one that seems to be missing, although the evidence is present right in the article:

The striking decline in global military spending has also received no attention from the press, which continues to promote the notion of a world staggering under the weight of instruments of destruction. Only a few nations, most prominently the United States, have increased their defense spending in the last decade. Today, the United States accounts for 44 percent of world military spending; if current trends continue, with many nations reducing defense spending while the United States continues to increase such spending as its military is restructured for new global anti-terrorism and peacekeeping roles, it is not out of the question that, in the future, the United States will spend more on arms and soldiers than the rest of the world combined.
This point is made in the article as a means of discussing whether the decrease in spending is a cause, or a result, of the overall decline in war. However, it seems to me to be far more significant than that. War is, in my opinion, on the decline because one nation weilds effective military hegemony, and that nation (America) is not perceived by it's potential competitors to be a threat. Yes, I know that anti-Americanism and claims of America being a rogue nation abound, but if other nations of the world, particularly the other developed nations, really believed that they would be increasing, not decreasing their military spending. War doesn't pay for most nations, because they know that they cannot win, and the risk of trying is greater than the any possible gains. Saddam's invasion of Kuwait proved that fairly effectively and his subsequent complete fall has only reinforced that lessen. While I am an optomistic person, I am not a utopian. This is most likely a temporary state. The Pax Romana eventually ended when Rome grew complacent and reduced it's military spending. The Legions soon became a hollow shell of what they once were, and the barbarians attacked. The same scenario is quite feasible with the Pax Americana. The price of peace is eternal vigilance, but the pressence of peace quite naturally reduces the tendency to be vigilant.

4 Comments:

Blogger Patrick Lightbody said...

Interesting thoughts and fairly on the mark -- however sad they may be. The idea that certain nations are in a state of fear purely because they are not us, and therefore don't have weapons that we have, is a bit disheartening. I imagine that is the exact reason that terrorists exist in the first place: they know terror can cut through culture, race, technology, and class.

5/23/2005 01:32:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Justus said...

I think actually most are not in a state of fear. France for example is happy to call us a dangerous rogue, but they know that they are not actually in any danger from us.

If they were in fear, rather than trusting us to defend them, they would invest more money in defense.

Now Syria, Iran, and North Korea are afraid I believe. I can live with that.

5/23/2005 03:31:00 PM  
Blogger Sandcastle said...

I think cuts in military spending are resulting from the hopelessness of war after the last World War. The atomic bomb changed everything. And with the build up of the Cold War, no countries are capable of staging a full out war with either America or Russia. Both nations possess huge stockpiles and second strike capability. Until someone finds a way to survive large scale nuclear attacks, an all-out war will be impossible. As for smaller operations like Iraq, Bosnia, and Afghanistan, I would expect them to continue indefinitely.

5/23/2005 04:10:00 PM  
Blogger Dave Justus said...

While you might expect the smaller operations to continue indefinately, it seems that they have been on the decline for over a decade, as the article points out, and explains very carefully.

Certainly that doesn't mean the trend will continue, or that it won't reach a new low plateau and remain constant there, but there is also reason to suspect, I think, that the peace can spread further.

5/23/2005 06:11:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home