Is military dominance as the key to global security a myth?

[j brown's body]

"It requires a lot of resources to do what the United States did to Iran last month. ...It should not be surprising that the United States is the only nation capable of pulling this kind of thing off. The U.S. government spends nearly one-tenth of its budget on the military. President Donald Trump and his military advisers believe all this makes their case to demand a lot more defense spending from the 32 nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. If NATO wants to deter the adventures of an increasingly brazen Russia, the thinking goes, it’s going to need to become much more powerful. ...The idea that massive military spending is indispensable to preserve global security, regardless of its opportunity cost, merits more scrutiny.

The case for peace through raw power is weaker than Trump would have it. Since at least 2001, the United States’ overwhelming military might has not built global peace. On the contrary, it has furthered instability....And his defunding of foreign aid has sacrificed critical tools the U.S. has used to promote world order. A glance at the list of top recipients — Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan, Nigeria and Ethiopia — underscores how important aid is to national security. As a recent Center for Strategic and International Studies report notes, “no amount of tactical victories or military efforts will be a substitute for political and economic stability in those countries.” Aid buys that.

...Militarists argue that the only way to deter the Russians, the Chinese or any other near-peer competitor is to intimidate them with awesome hardware — to impress upon them that any potential benefit of defying the United States and its allies will pale next to the costs they will incur. But this simplistic view of deterrence encourages arms races. It locks in hostile equilibria — dividing the world between friends and foes — and blinds us to alternative strategies involving soft power. Clearly, it has failed to prevent repeated challenges from adversaries. European Union countries spend almost three times as much as Russia on the military. The United States spends three times as much as the Europeans. This massive overspend did nothing to stop Vladimir Putin from annexing a chunk of Georgia in 2008, invading the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and then making a move for the rest of Ukraine."

Link

This makes common sense. Peace through foreign aid and negotiations put those who want peace in greater control of the outcomes and promotes stability, where waging war famously runs the risk of things running out of control.

It's also quite a bit cheaper.

 

[ataraxia]

The idea of world peace through cosmopolitanism, tolerance, pluralism, equality, and solidarity (e Pluribus Unum) is a product of liberal enlightenment thought. That led to things like the American constitution and the post World War II world order.

But the world is now moving away from that kind of thinking- back to a tribal, intolerant, anti-science, anti-democratic culture.

The last time the world did this was the early 20th century. History may not repeat, but it sure rhymes. That does not bode well for what else may be coming.

 

[anatta]

blinds us to alternative strategies involving soft power.

yes

 

[j brown's body]

The idea of world peace through cosmopolitanism, tolerance, pluralism, equality, and solidarity (e Pluribus Unum) is a product of liberal enlightenment thought.

That led to things like the American constitution and the post World War II world order. The world is now moving away from that kind of thinking- back to a tribal, intolerant, anti-science, anti-democratic culture.

The last time the world did this was the early 20th century. History may not repeat, but it sure rhymes. That does not bode well for what else may be coming.

Yeah, as WWII taught us, when a nation is locked away in its isolationist tribal unit, trouble will find you anyway, and find you flat footed.

 

[Revelation]

The idea of world peace through cosmopolitan solidarity (e Pluribus Unum) and stability is a product of liberal enlightenment thought.

That led to things like the American constitution and the post World War II world order. The world is now moving away from that kind of thinking- back to a tribal, intolerant, anti-science, anti-democratic culture.

we are not going back, we are heading for Destruction at a clip which will be faster. Currently we are just one step from WW three that will change everything and neo Fascism will finally win this time....


ALERT: How Close Are we To NUCLEAR WAR? - Canadian Prepper

the average sheep pays no attention to this, but they will when looking out their window and finding their city is no longer there. sorry toooo late.


blessings you all, keep looking but don't find anything out of the norm. each new normal will be worse than the last as the video above explains to you.

The last time the world did this was the early 20th century. History may not repeat, but it sure rhymes. That does not bode well for what else may be coming.

 

[ataraxia]

Yeah, as WWII taught us, when a nation is locked away in its isolationist tribal unit, trouble will find you anyway, and find you flat footed.

Actually, that kind of tribalism, intolerance, and xenophobia is exactly why trouble starts in the first place.

 

[Revelation]

Actually, that kind of tribalism, intolerance, and xenophobia is exactly why trouble starts in the first place.

in Reality, look to the top of World Leadership and note how the Elite will lead us gradually into WW three; we are now there. please keep this quiet.


thank you.

.

 

[Sweden]

yes

'Soft power' is a concept much loved by the powerless.. It is pretty low cost and is thought to secure a pace on the High Moral Ground where peace songs can be sung every day.

 

[j brown's body]

'Soft power' is a concept much loved by the powerless.. It is pretty low cost and is thought to secure a pace on the High Moral Ground where peace songs can be sung every day.

I left out the moral part of the argument. Thanks for adding it.

 

[anatta]

'Soft power' is a concept much loved by the powerless.. It is pretty low cost and is thought to secure a pace on the High Moral Ground where peace songs can be sung every day.

its more then that. Look how effectively China has used their Belt and Road initiative to spread influence.
It's to the point Africa doesn't want to deal with the US/west (minerals)
I'm not saying it replaces hard power, but it augments it at a low cost

 

[Girlpower]

"It requires a lot of resources to do what the United States did to Iran last month. ...It should not be surprising that the United States is the only nation capable of pulling this kind of thing off. The U.S. government spends nearly one-tenth of its budget on the military. President Donald Trump and his military advisers believe all this makes their case to demand a lot more defense spending from the 32 nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. If NATO wants to deter the adventures of an increasingly brazen Russia, the thinking goes, it’s going to need to become much more powerful. ...The idea that massive military spending is indispensable to preserve global security, regardless of its opportunity cost, merits more scrutiny.

The case for peace through raw power is weaker than Trump would have it. Since at least 2001, the United States’ overwhelming military might has not built global peace. On the contrary, it has furthered instability....And his defunding of foreign aid has sacrificed critical tools the U.S. has used to promote world order. A glance at the list of top recipients — Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan, Nigeria and Ethiopia — underscores how important aid is to national security. As a recent Center for Strategic and International Studies report notes, “no amount of tactical victories or military efforts will be a substitute for political and economic stability in those countries.” Aid buys that.

...Militarists argue that the only way to deter the Russians, the Chinese or any other near-peer competitor is to intimidate them with awesome hardware — to impress upon them that any potential benefit of defying the United States and its allies will pale next to the costs they will incur. But this simplistic view of deterrence encourages arms races. It locks in hostile equilibria — dividing the world between friends and foes — and blinds us to alternative strategies involving soft power. Clearly, it has failed to prevent repeated challenges from adversaries. European Union countries spend almost three times as much as Russia on the military. The United States spends three times as much as the Europeans. This massive overspend did nothing to stop Vladimir Putin from annexing a chunk of Georgia in 2008, invading the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and then making a move for the rest of Ukraine."

Link

This makes common sense. Peace through foreign aid and negotiations put those who want peace in greater control of the outcomes and promotes stability, where waging war famously runs the risk of things running out of control.

It's also quite a bit cheaper.

Name one time that foreign aid has stopped a war.

 

[j brown's body]

Name one time that foreign aid has stopped a war.

The claim isn't that it stops war, it's that it promotes stability, which makes war less likely.

The Marshall Plan stabilizing western Europe so that the Communists couldn't establish themselves comes to mind.

Otherwise, as the op points out:

"A glance at the list of top recipients — Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan, Nigeria and Ethiopia — underscores how important aid is to national security. As a recent Center for Strategic and International Studies report notes, “no amount of tactical victories or military efforts will be a substitute for political and economic stability in those countries.” Aid buys that."

 

[Girlpower]

The claim isn't that it stops war, it's that it promotes stability, which makes war less likely.

The Marshall Plan stabilizing western Europe so that the Communists couldn't establish themselves comes to mind.

Otherwise, as the op points out:

"A glance at the list of top recipients — Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan, Nigeria and Ethiopia — underscores how important aid is to national security. As a recent Center for Strategic and International Studies report notes, “no amount of tactical victories or military efforts will be a substitute for political and economic stability in those countries.” Aid buys that."

The Marshall Plan failed miserably.

It didn't stop anything.

You can ask Ukraine.

 

[joluoto]

"It requires a lot of resources to do what the United States did to Iran last month. ...It should not be surprising that the United States is the only nation capable of pulling this kind of thing off. The U.S. government spends nearly one-tenth of its budget on the military. President Donald Trump and his military advisers believe all this makes their case to demand a lot more defense spending from the 32 nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. If NATO wants to deter the adventures of an increasingly brazen Russia, the thinking goes, it’s going to need to become much more powerful. ...The idea that massive military spending is indispensable to preserve global security, regardless of its opportunity cost, merits more scrutiny.

The case for peace through raw power is weaker than Trump would have it. Since at least 2001, the United States’ overwhelming military might has not built global peace. On the contrary, it has furthered instability....And his defunding of foreign aid has sacrificed critical tools the U.S. has used to promote world order. A glance at the list of top recipients — Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan, Nigeria and Ethiopia — underscores how important aid is to national security. As a recent Center for Strategic and International Studies report notes, “no amount of tactical victories or military efforts will be a substitute for political and economic stability in those countries.” Aid buys that.

...Militarists argue that the only way to deter the Russians, the Chinese or any other near-peer competitor is to intimidate them with awesome hardware — to impress upon them that any potential benefit of defying the United States and its allies will pale next to the costs they will incur. But this simplistic view of deterrence encourages arms races. It locks in hostile equilibria — dividing the world between friends and foes — and blinds us to alternative strategies involving soft power. Clearly, it has failed to prevent repeated challenges from adversaries. European Union countries spend almost three times as much as Russia on the military. The United States spends three times as much as the Europeans. This massive overspend did nothing to stop Vladimir Putin from annexing a chunk of Georgia in 2008, invading the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and then making a move for the rest of Ukraine."

Link

This makes common sense. Peace through foreign aid and negotiations put those who want peace in greater control of the outcomes and promotes stability, where waging war famously runs the risk of things running out of control.

It's also quite a bit cheaper.

Hard power is important, but only half the equation. Without soft power all you have are temporarily controlled enemies, and no friends.

 

[german hick]

'Soft power' is a concept much loved by the powerless.. It is pretty low cost and is thought to secure a pace on the High Moral Ground where peace songs can be sung every day.

You may laugh, but that´s exactly my lala - land. Call me naive and I call you cynical. My believe is we should have left the caveman concept.

disclaimer: has nothing to do with the real necessaty to send weapons to Ukraine - pacifism cannot be made alone - I only hate the concept of bullying to be without alternative in so many peoples narratives

 

[joluoto]

I can tell you that China is dominating much of Africa right now, and it's not through hard power.

 

[Sweden]

You may laugh, but that´s exactly my lala - land. Call me naive and I call you cynical. My believe is we should have left the caveman concept.

disclaimer: has nothing to do with the real necessaty to send weapons to Ukraine - pacifism cannot be made alone - I only hate the concept of bullying to be without alternative in so many peoples narratives

Here is a case which is probably news for you. Its from Scotland where a small 52 year old nurse was bullied by a young 6 ft trans doctor - and the Fife health authority.

Sandie Peggie | Peak Trans

www.peaktrans.org

Imo and btw it is better to be cynical and questioning that naive and willing to believe whatever one is told.

 

[german hick]

Imo and btw it is better to be cynical and questioning that naive and willing to believe whatever one is told.

I´m with you there - but it´s even better to be not cynical and don´t believe anything you are told. e.g. - might only comes from weapons and softscills are useless. To close the circle

edit the "news stors" - I don´t read such stories. 99 % are propaganda from either side and my time is too short to find out about the 1% wich may have evidence

 

[cpwill]

"It requires a lot of resources to do what the United States did to Iran last month. ...It should not be surprising that the United States is the only nation capable of pulling this kind of thing off. The U.S. government spends nearly one-tenth of its budget on the military. President Donald Trump and his military advisers believe all this makes their case to demand a lot more defense spending from the 32 nations of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. If NATO wants to deter the adventures of an increasingly brazen Russia, the thinking goes, it’s going to need to become much more powerful. ...The idea that massive military spending is indispensable to preserve global security, regardless of its opportunity cost, merits more scrutiny.

The case for peace through raw power is weaker than Trump would have it. Since at least 2001, the United States’ overwhelming military might has not built global peace. On the contrary, it has furthered instability....And his defunding of foreign aid has sacrificed critical tools the U.S. has used to promote world order. A glance at the list of top recipients — Afghanistan and Pakistan, Iraq, Egypt and Jordan, Nigeria and Ethiopia — underscores how important aid is to national security. As a recent Center for Strategic and International Studies report notes, “no amount of tactical victories or military efforts will be a substitute for political and economic stability in those countries.” Aid buys that.

...Militarists argue that the only way to deter the Russians, the Chinese or any other near-peer competitor is to intimidate them with awesome hardware — to impress upon them that any potential benefit of defying the United States and its allies will pale next to the costs they will incur. But this simplistic view of deterrence encourages arms races. It locks in hostile equilibria — dividing the world between friends and foes — and blinds us to alternative strategies involving soft power. Clearly, it has failed to prevent repeated challenges from adversaries. European Union countries spend almost three times as much as Russia on the military. The United States spends three times as much as the Europeans. This massive overspend did nothing to stop Vladimir Putin from annexing a chunk of Georgia in 2008, invading the Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and then making a move for the rest of Ukraine."

Link

This makes common sense. Peace through foreign aid and negotiations put those who want peace in greater control of the outcomes and promotes stability, where waging war famously runs the risk of things running out of control.

It's also quite a bit cheaper.

....Diplomacy without military backing is ultimately begging.

 

[bomberfox]

There isnt going to be an end to war with the way things are going and we are going to destroy ourselves. Seems Star Trek was predictive of our fate.

 

[Sweden]

There isnt going to be an end to war with the way things are going and we are going to destroy ourselves. Seems Star Trek was predictive of our fate.

We have already had the 'War to end war' known as WWI. We have also had the 'End of history'. Neither quite worked out. Maybe wars will end when HS becomes extinct in, say. a few hundred thousand years.