[wolverine876]

I have a hard time understanding what these statements are talking about.

> to fight less wars. That's a lofty goal, and maybe attainable, but probably far off for humanity as a whole.

It's not only lofty and "maybe" attainable, it's already happened, beginning decades ago. You're living in the most peaceful time in human history. There are almost no international wars (maybe Armenia and Azerbaijan count?). The great powers fight no wars with each other. War is almost unimaginable across vast geographic areas: Europe, especially sans Russia. North America, South America - the entire Americas. South and Southeast Asia, with the possible (and significant) exception of India and Pakistan. East Asia except North Korea. Etc.

It's not an accident or luck; it was a program of the early 20th century to make war illegal, and that came to fruition after WWII when the victors (who were not daydreamers - they knew more about war than we can ever imagine or want to know) formed the UN and the roots of the EU explicitly to prevent future wars.

It's like saying that extending human average human lifespan past 50 years is "a lofty goal, and maybe attainable, but probably far off for humanity as a whole."

> Critical to any military, much less society, is the concept of a warrior class.

There is no "warrior class" in the West or in the democratic world. For most of American and democratic history, wars were fought using draftees and citizen soldiers, like the Minutemen - everyone, not a class. The current American and most wealthy country militaries are filled with volunteers, people from all walks of life - not a class, unless we redefine the meaning of "class" as 'any group of people in the same job'. They are not trained over generations; in fact, many in the U.S. military are immigrants and the children of immigrants.

A 'warrior class' doesn't have a place in U.S. society, which is explicitly anti-class. That doesn't mean there is perfect social mobility, but generally we expect and encourage individuals to follow their own paths - not many reading this follow the family profession (especially in IT!) - and to succeed or fail by their effort and merit. If Mary's mother was a farmer, we aren't shocked if Mary becomes a programmer or doctor or artist. Obviously, we have much work to do to achieve those ideals, but the ideal is certainly not a caste system.

[icegreentea2]

There is certainly less war now than before, but from the standpoint of "should a society be prepared for thinking about use of force", the reduction is basically immaterial, ESPECIALLY for America. America weighs the question of "what force should be used, where, when and for what purpose" constantly.

America also has a "warrior class" in a few different ways of looking at it.

A) If you look at how America is, rather than America's goal, there is a warrior class of sorts (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/10/us/military-enlistment.ht...). 30% of recruits have parents who served, 70% have a relative who served.

B) While the body of America military is nominally grafted from the same stock of the rest of the populace (see above for distortion), a significant portion the leadership of the military is absolutely a distinct beast. While yes, they are nominally just another citizen, they have part of a distinct culture (how could you not if you spent 10+ years in service of an institution) with a distinct way of seeing the world.

In both senses, it is worthwhile to consider that something "like a warrior class" exists, and that we should take its presence, its way of thinking and acting, and its implications seriously.

[wolverine876]

> America weighs the question of "what force should be used, where, when and for what purpose" constantly.

Yes, but I think every country makes those decisions and uses its military from time to time, at least every major country (kudos to Costa Rica for eliminating its military!) including all the NATO countries. The U.S. is a different case; it has been the guarantor of the post-WWII order and so uses its military more than some others (that doesn't justify the actions).

> 30% of recruits have parents who served, 70% have a relative who served

I'm surprised those numbers aren't higher for the population as a whole. For one thing, people were being drafted as recently as the 1970s. I'd expect that almost everyone has a relative who was in the military. I don't come from a military-oriented family in any sense, and I have at least three living ex-military relatives and of course many deceased ones.

But of course there is some continuity from generation to generation. That applies to any profession, locale, etc. People aren't surprised that the engineer's child becomes an artist, but the child is more likely to become an engineer than most people. Does that mean there is an 'engineer class'?

> a significant portion the leadership of the military is absolutely a distinct beast. While yes, they are nominally just another citizen, they have part of a distinct culture (how could you not if you spent 10+ years in service of an institution) with a distinct way of seeing the world.

The GP was talking about a sort of caste (my word), trained and treated distinctly from generation to generation. Every profession, community, ethnicity, etc etc. creates a distinct way of seeing the world. Look at people in SV! Y Combinator does the same. Other parts of government do the same. There's nothing special about the military in that regard.

[jholman]

>> Critical to any military, much less society, is the concept of a warrior class

> The GP was talking about a sort of caste, ... treated distinctly from generation to generation

If it's true that the kodah meant that, then it is patently hilariously absurd. There are many militaries, and many societies, that haven't worked that way, and some of them have been successful. You mention the modern "west" (though I don't know why, because it's just as true in the USSR or in China or in etc etc), but this isn't even the best example. Many societies required all citizens to be equally warriors, such as most first nations societies, or for example the Mongols. So clearly, if kodah meant what you claim they meant, they would be really really really wrong, like ludicrously wrong.

As such (and this is my point), it's probably better to assume that the kodah didn't mean that. It's probably better to steelman, rather than strawman.

[wolverine876]

I just said the West because I was thinking quickly and didn't know clearly about other countries. It was conceivable, even if unlikely, that officers in China or Russia (USSR? :) ) or someplace else are mostly hereditary, and I saw no need to raise that issue.

> So clearly, if kodah meant what you claim they meant, they would be really really really wrong, like ludicrously wrong. / As such (and this is my point), it's probably better to assume that the kodah didn't mean that. It's probably better to steelman, rather than strawman.

Always important to remember. And I should have phrased it that way. Thanks.

[refurb]

It's not only lofty and "maybe" attainable, it's already happened, beginning decades ago.

That is a very rose-colored glasses viewpoint. WW2 ended only 80 years ago, which is a minuscule amount of time in the grand scheme of things.

And since that time we haven't had a global conflict, but add up all the proxy wars, civil wars, "low intensity conflicts" and we're still looking at millions of dead.

I'd argue that the reason why we haven't seen a major global conflict is just the immediate post-WW2 global order (2 major superpowers with nuclear weapons) which drove it to multiple smaller conflict. Depending on how the world order changes (i.e. China) there is nothing to say we won't see another major global conflict.

And yes, organizations like the UN are great ways to address conflict before they become major wars, but I'd argue the effect has been incredibly small. The UN existed at the same time as the Vietnam War, the Afghanistan War, the Rwandan genocide, both Gulf Wars and it was basically "the UN issued a strongly worded statement" and the wars happened anyways.

[wolverine876]

> That is a very rose-colored glasses viewpoint.

No, it's factual. I didn't say there were no wars; I said there were fewer than at any time in human history.

If our standard is perfection, then every human endeavor has failed and we should return paleolithic life. People still die of illness, so we could argue that modern healthcare has failed; don't bother using it. Regarding the UN, in politics there is no certain proof ever of cause and effect, so arguably we should eliminate all political institutions.

The lack of war is the fact. The parent's theory of why or how and its predictions have no basis that I see.