| Those wars are bad, but badness needs to be measured relative to something. For example, the Afghanistan war from 2001 to the present has killed somewhere between 25,000 and 40,000 people. This makes it very small by the standards of 20th century wars. In the 1990s alone, there were at least eight wars an order of magnitude bigger than that (Congo, Sierra Leone, Chechnya, Yugoslavia, Algeria, Burundi, Rawanda). And yes, we can add up Syria and Iraq too, and that is a much bigger number, but I can likewise keep adding up 1990s wars. It turns out that was a more violent decade in terms of actual battle deaths. > though I could argue the actual starting point is Pakistan or maybe even Indonesia You could argue that, but you would be hampered by the fact that casualty numbers in those countries are minuscule by the standards of actual wars. > not to mention terror in Europe. Terror is Europe is up a bit but still far from the highs it was hitting in the 1970s. http://www.datagraver.com/case/people-killed-by-terrorism-pe... The panicky "things are worse than ever and deteriorating" position is just not supported by hard evidence. It's stoked by an eager media ecosystem that profits from fear, and an aging generation that wants to externalize it's own perceptions of decline. Many of the people saying "the west is declining" are in fact just baby boomers who are declining who can't accept that they are not equal to "the west". |
This might be the worst possible way to think about the present security situation. In aggregate numbers are there less lives being destroyed today than in the 1990s? Maybe. But what does that have to do with total risk of all out war? You're measuring everything by casualty numbers, and not the actual potential for catastrophe, to say nothing of the risk of actual civil war in Europe precipitated by rapid demographic changeover. Scoff at that all you like, but you'll struggle to find a time in history where they was such a significant culture clash that didn't result in violence.
>You could argue that, but you would be hampered by the fact that casualty numbers in those countries are minuscule by the standards of actual wars. >Terror is Europe is up a bit but still far from the highs it was hitting in the 1970s.
That argument is so, so tired. What level of casualties would make you actually take this serious? Do Jihadists need to be killing people monthly? Weekly? Do we need to have a major 9/11-like incident or more Nice style attacks?
>Many of the people saying "the west is declining" are in fact just baby boomers who are declining who can't accept that they are not equal to "the west".
In my experience boomers are the ones acting like everything is just fine and it's actually folks who are a bit younger and look at history on a munch longer timeline than just the last ~200 years who think we're in for some rough times ahead.