In my last two posts I’ve noted while war deaths have fallen greatly since the world wars, the magnitude and duration of this fall isn’t that far out of line with previous falls over the last four centuries, falls that have always been followed by rises, as part of a regular cycle of war. I also noted that the theory arguments that have been offered to explain why this trend will long continue, in a deviation from the historical pattern, seem weak. Thus there seems to be a substantial and neglected chance of a lot more war in the next century. I’m not the only one who says this;
Most nations have territorial taxation. There seems to be only one example of a country using US-style citizenship-based taxation (besides the US itself), namely Eritrea.
Who would fight a “woke crusade”? Woke ideology is, effectively, the hegemonic US ideology and it particularly demonises Russia. So, in short, the US military would fight a “woke crusade”—it already has done so, to an extent, in countries like Afghanistan.
Russia is conceptualised, in the woke view, as being the embodiment of anti-woke values: a quasi—demonic enemy. She is a “white” country (using woke standards), she is promoting traditional Christianity, she is anti-LGBT, she backs “white supremacists” in the US, and she opposes the wider foreign policy aims of the US in the world.
Further, a substantial portion of the American political system is now so self-deluded as to believe that Russia put Trump in power. Senior Democrats probably do not believe this, but the propaganda offensive of the last few years has created hundreds of thousands of “true believers”. Young activists entering politics will, in particular, have known almost nothing except the “Russia put Trump in power” line. When the Democrats eventually return to power, you will see people who really believe that “Russia stole the election” in positions of power and responsibility. Worse, they will assume that people within the American system have been subverted by Russia on a massive scale.
MAD should assure that there are no hostilities between Russia and the USA, but MAD also assumes that the people in charge in each country have a certain level of trust regarding their own systems. If you live in a country where you suspect that your political opponents are controlled by an opposing country, how will that shift your incentives?
Conditions are assured for a radical misreading of Putin’s intentions, particularly because wokeness in complete power will not trust assessments of Russia’s intentions from within their own military and security structure (assumed to be compromised by the years of Trump).
So we have a confluence of factors that could lead to war: years of hysterical ideological animus and demonisation, a widespread assumption that hostile action has already taken place (Trump’s “Russia-backed” election), and lack of trust in your own “subverted” system.
This could be enough to tip the balance towards war by accident, even if this is strictly irrational on the MAD model.
You seem to be leaving out the Taiping wars with over 20 million killed. Also the Mongol invasions. The death of leading powers like Imperial Rome and China leads to unrest, war, and death that are usually substantial.
One reason for the apparent clustering of conflicts, could be that wars (like economic depression) cause instability, which again cause (or at least prepares the ground for) more wars/conflicts.
The anti science, anti expert, anti data mentality seems much riskier, leading to supporting fervent ideologies, economic stress and failure. I am not sure ideologies should be viewed as the source but as the result of other factors, latched onto in times of distress and turmoil, such as the depression leading to WWII.
The new ideology isn't intrinsically within state, nor were the old ones intrinsically between states. All new ideologies start out with only part of some states, and must work to dominate individual states.
Most nations have territorial taxation. There seems to be only one example of a country using US-style citizenship-based taxation (besides the US itself), namely Eritrea.
thanks my friend :)
Who would fight a “woke crusade”? Woke ideology is, effectively, the hegemonic US ideology and it particularly demonises Russia. So, in short, the US military would fight a “woke crusade”—it already has done so, to an extent, in countries like Afghanistan.
Russia is conceptualised, in the woke view, as being the embodiment of anti-woke values: a quasi—demonic enemy. She is a “white” country (using woke standards), she is promoting traditional Christianity, she is anti-LGBT, she backs “white supremacists” in the US, and she opposes the wider foreign policy aims of the US in the world.
Further, a substantial portion of the American political system is now so self-deluded as to believe that Russia put Trump in power. Senior Democrats probably do not believe this, but the propaganda offensive of the last few years has created hundreds of thousands of “true believers”. Young activists entering politics will, in particular, have known almost nothing except the “Russia put Trump in power” line. When the Democrats eventually return to power, you will see people who really believe that “Russia stole the election” in positions of power and responsibility. Worse, they will assume that people within the American system have been subverted by Russia on a massive scale.
MAD should assure that there are no hostilities between Russia and the USA, but MAD also assumes that the people in charge in each country have a certain level of trust regarding their own systems. If you live in a country where you suspect that your political opponents are controlled by an opposing country, how will that shift your incentives?
Conditions are assured for a radical misreading of Putin’s intentions, particularly because wokeness in complete power will not trust assessments of Russia’s intentions from within their own military and security structure (assumed to be compromised by the years of Trump).
So we have a confluence of factors that could lead to war: years of hysterical ideological animus and demonisation, a widespread assumption that hostile action has already taken place (Trump’s “Russia-backed” election), and lack of trust in your own “subverted” system.
This could be enough to tip the balance towards war by accident, even if this is strictly irrational on the MAD model.
You seem to be leaving out the Taiping wars with over 20 million killed. Also the Mongol invasions. The death of leading powers like Imperial Rome and China leads to unrest, war, and death that are usually substantial.
It's out of the way of the nuclear powers.
https://www.lesswrong.com/p... might be of some use.
Depends on the taxation policies of your second citizenship, right? Some nations have territorial taxation.
One reason for the apparent clustering of conflicts, could be that wars (like economic depression) cause instability, which again cause (or at least prepares the ground for) more wars/conflicts.
Robin caused you to ask for evidence.
The tax consequences are fairly prohibitive.
This is often done by historians.
Supporting evidence for this claim?
This seems highly unprincipled to me. Can you explain why you would combine them?
There are no causes that aren't caused by something else.
The anti science, anti expert, anti data mentality seems much riskier, leading to supporting fervent ideologies, economic stress and failure. I am not sure ideologies should be viewed as the source but as the result of other factors, latched onto in times of distress and turmoil, such as the depression leading to WWII.
The new ideology isn't intrinsically within state, nor were the old ones intrinsically between states. All new ideologies start out with only part of some states, and must work to dominate individual states.