The Economics of War

drunken_munky52

Perhaps future historians will look upon us as deviants with our artificialities, violence, and superstitions, a society that spends a great deal of its income on military expenditures when the methods of science could be applied to bridge the difference between nations.

Perhaps through no fault of the world military institutions themselves, they also have to maintain huge military expenditures to protect themselves from invasion from others, in a resource competitive based ideology.

In the schools of tomorrow people could learn how to relate to others intelligently, cooperate and share ideas to help make the world a far better place, and not to squander resources in wars and military expenditures.

If we had utilized the money that we spent on military systems for the last 40 years and put it toward developing clean sources of energy, the world would be a far better, safer, and cleaner place for all of humankind.

Manic Moran

If we had utilized the money that we spent on military systems for the last 40 years and put it toward developing clean sources of energy, the world would be a far better, safer, and cleaner place for all of humankind.

Your first three paragraphs are more a case of idealism than pragmatism. You cannot rely solely on goodwill and technology exchange to promote harmony, as that's far too rational. You have to remember that humans are irrational creatures and oftentimes we will declare war on each other for irrational reasons. As a result, si vic pacem, para bellum.

The last statement omits the benefits for all of humankind which have come as a result of the various arms races. Think of how many devices you rely on on a daily basis have been funded and developed by the military. computers, lasers, the Internet, medical trauma science, jet aviation, satellite communication, GPS...

NTM

Hard Larry

I agree with the OP we have to stop our petty squabbles and group together as one race..

...then we can get off this rock and start invading new worlds. Hoo-rah OP!

Black Swan

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Perhaps future historians will look upon us as deviants with our artificialities, violence, and superstitions, a society that spends a great deal of its income on military expenditures when the methods of science could be applied to bridge the difference between nations.

Not if the past contributes to a prediction of the future.

"In the last 3,421 years of recorded history only 268 have seen no war."
(The Lessons of History, 1968, by Will and Ariel Durant)

drunken_munky52

Manic Moran wrote: »

You have to remember that humans are irrational creatures and oftentimes we will declare war on each other for irrational reasons.

The reality is that we live in a society that produces scarcity. The consequence of this scarcity is that human beings must behave in self preserving ways, even if it means they have to declaring war in order to get what they want.

This simple reality has been grossly overlooked and today people primitively think that competition, greed and corruption are "hardwired" elements of human behavior and, in turn, we must have a military. This is totally illogical and false.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The last statement omits the benefits for all of humankind which have come as a result of the various arms races. Think of how many devices you rely on on a daily basis have been funded and developed by the military. computers, lasers, the Internet, medical trauma science, jet aviation, satellite communication, GPS...

NTM

Obviously, the scientific method is used constantly for isolated systems such as the military, but it has never been truly considered in the broadest ways. This is largely due to age old superstitions which battle the logic of science in favor of a dogmatic, outdated and highly romanticised world view.

If we had the option to rebuild a society from scratch, how would we do it to make it the most efficient, sustainable and humane? Obviously, we cannot build a society from scratch but the point is clear. Time to reject reject the military institutions, or do we keep our young people thinking its "A life less ordinary"?

neilled

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Perhaps future historians will look upon us as deviants with our artificialities, violence, and superstitions, a society that spends a great deal of its income on military expenditures when the methods of science could be applied to bridge the difference between nations.

Perhaps through no fault of the world military institutions themselves, they also have to maintain huge military expenditures to protect themselves from invasion from others, in a resource competitive based ideology.

In the schools of tomorrow people could learn how to relate to others intelligently, cooperate and share ideas to help make the world a far better place, and not to squander resources in wars and military expenditures.

If we had utilized the money that we spent on military systems for the last 40 years and put it toward developing clean sources of energy, the world would be a far better, safer, and cleaner place for all of humankind.

Erm, you've completely ignored realist theory, the idea that the international system is chaotic system with no set rules involved. Whilst all states are nominally equal, their capabilities differ. If the republic of Ireland demanded that Luxembourg complied with a demand, they might not feel inclined to comply. If the USA or any other state posessing large amounts of military and economic clout did, then the chance of compliance are higher.

The other thing about realism is that it recognises that you tend not to have control over who your neighbours elect as their leader or who governs them. So whilst norway and sweden (or pick any two states) have good relations at the moment, there's nothing to say tahat relations won't deteriorate in the future or one isn't capable electing the next great dictator or that one won't attempt an invasion of the other. Therefor states maintain the capability for organised violence in the form of armed forces and they like the knowledge that they like to have more capability than their neighbours.

Another reason for the continued existance of military forces is that the state (and people who comprise the state instituions) has a vested interest in sustaining itself, both from external and internal assault and again the maintainance of personell that are trained to engage in organised violence is the ultimate form of control.

Of course this debate could spiral off into a the whole "state of nature" locke vs hobbes thing.......

Manic Moran

The reality is that we live in a society that produces scarcity. The consequence of this scarcity is that human beings must behave in self preserving ways, even if it means they have to declaring war in order to get what they want.

Those can be rational reasons. I'm thinking more along the lines of wars over ideological differences, such as what colour hat the true followers of Cloister, the Cat God should wear. Stranger things have happened. I mean, after one chap got himself nailed to a tree, the world hasn't seen peace since.

Time to reject reject the military institutions, or do we keep our young people thinking its "A life less ordinary"?

So what happens when the aliens invade?

NTM

kowloon

Manic Moran wrote: »

So what happens when the aliens invade?

dresden8

kowloon wrote: »

Hopefully.

FISMA

As much as it may abhor you to recognize, a lot of science, math, technology, and medicine owes itself to war.

You're first paragraph presupposes that such inventions gained via war would naturally have come about during peace time, I doubt that.

Or perhaps, that they would have come about faster, I doubt that too. Necessity is the mother of invention. You'll tend to get things done faster when zee Germans are coming.

As for science - that'll save us, right? Science, those that brought us Nukes, VX, Napalm, Chem-Bio warfare and a whole host of other little nasties that if you ever got it, well, you'd beg to be shot.

As for "Obviously, the scientific method is used constantly for isolated systems such as the military" - what does this even mean? Isolated system as in the Thermo sense?

drunken_munky52

FISMA wrote: »

As much as it may abhor you to recognize, a lot of science, math, technology, and medicine owes itself to war.

You're first paragraph presupposes that such inventions gained via war would naturally have come about during peace time, I doubt that.

How can you doubt that?

FISMA wrote: »

Necessity is the mother of invention.

Exactly, but I dont see how war is somehow the catalyst for human ingenuity. There are many problems in the world we face that require us to adapt, hence technological breakthroughs. With war, we adapt with new ways on killing each other. There is no evidence to suggest that by-product technology from war would only have come about if millions didnt die in the process.

FISMA wrote: »

As for science - that'll save us, right? Science, those that brought us Nukes, VX, Napalm, Chem-Bio warfare and a whole host of other little nasties that if you ever got it, well, you'd beg to be shot.

Scientists with natural human curiosity found through various experiments and mathematical expressions various milestone breakthroughs which are used for good things. It was never Einstein's ambition to kill 100,000 people, he just wanted a simple equation to show to relationship between energy and matter. It was how to military applied his discovery that gave rise to enormous amounts of resources to be wasted on exterminating other people

The fact of the matter is, the military is an outdated institution in every regard. It has no place in the modern world, only to serve the interests of a handful elite. The people need to realize this, take a stand and do everything possible to have such resource eating blights made history.