International Relations 101 (#65): Is War Obsolete?

Mutually assured destruction is one explanation for the long-lasting peace between major powers. But what if war has become so costly--even without nuclear weapons--that it is essentially obsolete?

[lastword]

Wait did i miss something? At 3:06 the deaths for ww2 seem very low arent estimates as high as 70 million?

[Gametheory]

Oil prices have two countervailing effects, so it is hard to say. On one hand, it increases the cost of moving troops, ships, planes, etc. from point A to point B. This makes war less likely. On the other, it decreases the amount of trade two states conduct. This makes war more likely. So it is hard to say.

[Gametheory]

Depending on how effective the nuclear weapons are, you might need both sides to (slowly) disarm.

[PunmasterSTP]

Another fascinating lecture; thanks for making and sharing all these videos!

[Gametheory]

Fair enough. International relations is more of a mine field than game theory.

[Vonzi]

What if only one party has nuclear weapons? Wouldn't that give them the possibility of destroying the other party at very little cost?

[RReggiee]

C'mon Will, you know the answer to that. If your lectures were standard curriculum for all HS students, too many would still dispute it. Even at the college level and beyond, ideologies held dear always trump reasonable discourse.

[emmanuelgalleguillos-cote]

Could you argue that WWII was basically a war for major powers to test the full extent of each others power (if you ignore the catalysts that sparked and fed the flame). when they realized the extent to which their capabilities to destroy exceeded their expectations they came to some deontological or cosmopolitinism ideology that it was simply not worth it? so instead they resorte to other tactics such as using economic warfare or cyber warfare to cripple an other state with out the use of violence. (direct violence I should say if you think about how people might die due to the crippled state of the country)

I guess the counter argument would be that economic/cyber warfare could trigger a war however I think they would still be hesitant to resort to war... Take for instance China hacking Google. Is that not a form of Cyber ware? I can't think of any instance in history where economics was used as a war tactic... (mostly econ. is the catalyst or the game ender)

Also I would like to add that the arms race was probably fueled by what Rationalists would see as the superior power is the one with most material and military power... I guess this video is the counter argument how much is necessary to actually keep enemy at bay vs overkill.

Also... is it just be or at least three times through out history Liberal/neoliberalism in global politics often digressed and turned into Merchantalist, realist, and what ever else. Constructivism my prove helpful to determine why liberalism keeps failing to reach full swing of motion before the world finds itself in a state of war. or at least within european states and other tangent states

I don't know I've been studying for my final for 3 days straight with few breaks in between maybe I need to go to sleep.

[WarthogARJ]

Perhaps you explain this better when you gave/give the lecture, but I see some flaws here.
You say "War", and then to me it seems you then assume it will be like WW1 and WW2.
And yet they were atypical wars: fight to the death.
And I don't think it matters if you restrict it to major power wars.
It's still not right.

And please see these remarks are constructive: I enjoy your videos, and am reading your books, published papers and PhD thesis.
I don't agree with everything (and perhaps I'm wrong in some/many cases), but it's interesting and informative.

Limitied vs total war:
I'd argue that if you look at the rest of many thousands of years of history, 99.9% of wars have been limited.
Limited as in not fighting with 100% of the full forces.

But they are STILL wars by any commonly accepted set of definitions.
As in armed troops of Country A fight those of Country B, and it's not just a limited "police action", "border incident" etc etc.

Disregard the "major" part, which I think is irrelevent.
IMO it's irrelevant because it's too subjective.
And hard to define.
Why does it matter?
If you mean NUCLEAR powers, then say so.

Let's look at difference between a "major global war" and other wars.
Like what would you call the UK/Argentine "conflict". Not a war?
Is not global.
Arguably not between major powers, although the UK is a 2nd tier major power.
And DOES have nukes.

What about civil or internal conflicts?
When do you call them a war?
Was it a war in Chechnya?
Algeria?
The ANC vs the South African government during Apartheid?
Recent conflict in Syria?

And wrt wars INVOLVING "major" powers, what about the latter half of the Korean War, when China came in?
That involved MANY major powers.

And the (several) Vietnam wars.
With the US supporting South Vietnam, and North Vietnam being heavily supported by first Russian then China.
Sure, wasn't much DIRECT conflict between US and the North Vietnamese backers, but was that relevant?

And the various conflicts in the Middle East?
Iran vs Iraq.
The various invasions of Iraq.
Israel/Arab wars.

This needs better ternminology.
Perhaps use "World War", "Limited War", "Proxy Wars" etc etc.
And define them.

And who says the Cold War was never hot?
Just because there wasn't a head-to-head tank war at the Fulda Gap doesn't mean there wasn't conflict, c/w casualties, between the Soviet Union and the USA (and its Allies).
Sure it was limited, but that's my point: it's misleading to assume a conflict needs to be all encompassing to be a "war".

And the numbers you quote for casualties in WW1, WW2 etc are misleading.
You seem to use only MILITARY casualties, but the point is that these wars were when CIVILIAN casualties MASSIVELY overshadowed CIVILIAN ones.
WW2 involved intentional strikes on industrial capacity: very destructive strikes.

But is not first time when civilan deaths were high: there have been many wars where the % of civilian deaths have been MUCH higher than military ones.
Ghengis Khan?
Any wars where the invading country practiced scorched earth policy.
Rome vs Cartthage.

And why does a modern war (with nuclear armed countries) have to INCLUDE nuclear weapons?
I'd argue including nuclear weapons is misleading: a red herring.

For instance, look at the Falklands War again: would you say it's relevant that the UK had nuclear weapons?
I think not.
Unless you look at a scenario where Argentina sailed up the Thames and tried to hold London to ransom...:-}

I think Argentina had very little concern that it would be nuked by the UK

[Gametheory]

What's up with all the down votes?