I have a tentative hypothesis towards a theory about war...

[karlschneider]

And this may not be original, but I don't recall having seen it explored.

Is it possible that there is a symbiosis between the -ability- to wage war and the -willingness- to do so?

What I'm wondering is (if it isn't obvious) whether the means to start an armed conflict is either a cause, an effect, or both, is developed from the desire to create the conflict...and conversely when that means is achieved to some degree does it encourage the desire to use them.

I guess the old term 'escalation' must be a part of the paradigm, and
also "vicious circle" too - sort of an "undamped oscillation" as we aero engineers study in a less serious venue.

Any comments welcome, this is just something that crawled between a couple of neurons while reading some threads here on DU.

:eyes:

[Syrinx]

1. hmmm

I'm sure that a country is more likely to start a war, if its leaders are reasonably certain of their ability to prevail. Is that what you mean?

[Old and In the Way]

2. When you spend $350BB/year on your Defense Budget,

seems that some want to see an ROI, right? Yes, I think there's a definite correlation bewteen one's ability to wage war and one's prediliction towards starting a war.

Sadly, since our last real competitor (the Soviet Union) dissolved, we've trended towards a more bellicose foreign policy and a much less domecratic domestic society.

[rucky]

3. Like a Chainsaw in the Garage...

that's been my analagy. Any chance to use it... Guess it's a guy thing.

[T Roosevelt]

4. I certainly think there's a direct correlation

I believe that the ability to wage war makes it an easier decision to make. The greater the likelihood of victory, the more likely leaders will view the costs as not significant. The problem is war is the first resort for the morally and intellectually weak, particularly when it is not the only solution to a problem. It's viewed as the more expedient, without looking at the post-war problems. Iraq is a great example of this.

[NJCher]

5. economic pressure to use the product

It actually comes right from the republican's support of weapons programs. The scholar cited in the passage below has researched why the U.S. is prone to war:

In a series of packed lectures in Oxford, Professor David Harvey, one of the world's most distinguished geographers, has provided what may be the first comprehensive explanation of the US government's determination to go to war. His analysis suggests that it has little to do Iraq, less to do with weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with helping the oppressed.
The underlying problem the United States confronts is the one which periodically afflicts all successful economies: the over-accumulation of capital. Excessive production of any good -- be it cars or shoes or bananas -- means that, unless new markets can be found, the price of that product falls and profits collapse. Just as it was in the early 1930s, the US is suffering from surpluses of commodities, manufactured products, manufacturing capacity and money. Just as it was then, it is also faced with a surplus of labour, yet the two surpluses, as before, cannot be profitably matched. This problem has been developing in the US since 1973. It has now tried every available means of solving it and, by doing so, maintaining its global dominance. The only remaining, politically viable option is war.


You can find the article at the Guardian in George Monbiot's archive (Feb. 18, 2003) or if you want the full article, PM me and I'll email it to you as a Word attachment.



Cher

[bloom]

11. Seems like computers would be affecting this:

"...surpluses of commodities, manufactured products, manufacturing capacity and money"

At least in the industry that I was in until Wednesday when many in the creative department were cut - I started out at the company when computers were first being used in graphics. Possibilities were opened up - was easier to do lots of cool things.

Now they are just interested in efficiency (and 'branding').... (The original company was bought out five years ago - so that didn't help, either.) So now they make vast quantities (and fewer options) and wonder why fewer people want them.

[not systems]

6. The warfare state...

is how I have seen this described.

It is the strong version of Eisenhower's millitary industral complex.

The society become dependent on war for economic reasons as
more and more peoples livelihood is made from arms related
industries and the explotation of resources gained through
conquest. This forms a feedback system between peoples
economic interests and waging war. With time this becomes
part of the social fabric of the society and influences all
aspects of life including education, religion, and entertainment.

This is about where we seem to be today.

[Scaramouche]

7. Since I've been posting a bit on this subject today...I'll give it shot...

The premise that there is a symbiosis between the ability to wage war and the willingness to do so. Does the ability to wage make war inevitable? Does violence beget violence?

I guess the answer you'll accept will be influenced on whether you believe ther is free will or everything is deterministic. Hell maybe we do live in a Manichean universe.

The Spartans trained for War and subsequently they were constantly at war. Yet, many martial artists train for combat and never have to fight, actually avoid it.

I mean people do beat swords into plowshres and study war no more...

I think this harder than I thought and I'll drink from the cup closer to me because I have an immunity to Iocaine Powder...

[karlschneider]

12. Inconceivable! haha

As to the dichotomy between predestination and free will, I defer to the expertise of Dr. Jubal Harshaw. But it is Saturday and I am uncertain what to believe this particular day. :D

[Scaramouche]

13. You've fallen victim to one of the classic blunders!

The most famous is "Never get involved in a land war in Asia", but only slightly less well known is this - "Never go in against a Sicilian, when death is on the line!" Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha h-! (falls over dead)

[bloom]

8. I had a teacher once who said something to the effect

that throughout history - when a country had lots of weapons built up - they used them.

Simple as that.

[Scaramouche]

14. During the 1st nuclear war...

The US shot its wad: Fat Man and Little Boy...Makes you wonder...

[mrgorth]

9. Everyone

should check out Dreaming War by Gore Vidal. It doesn't discuss your idea perse but more that, since Truman, we've decided to be ina a state of perpetual war. It's good for the economy or something.

[karlschneider]

10. Actually replying to everyone, all of whom have made good points!

As I think more about this, perhaps I generalized it too much. It may be simply that the addiction (I originally wrote "affection" and changed it) humans seem to have for warfare is hard wired and that technology simply makes it easier and more "effective" or "efficient" which in turn tends to optimize the hoped-for results - which when are desirable thus reinforce the tendency and even when they are unfortunate give rise to the notion "we'll do better next time."

Thanks for the responses...this is hurting my brain a little.
:eyes:

[Scaramouche]

15. The way you wrote just hurt my brain...

The companies developing these weapons need a trial every several years. A kind of field test, as engineers would say...

I makes you wonder who is in control. One theory on the Atomic bombing of Japan was we spent all the money developing the bomb how could we not use it...