[sudhirj]

There are notes in Sapiens proposing that war (the violent kind) is no longer useful / does not produce outcomes because the global economy has shifted from one of physical resources to knowledge based. That it no longer makes sense to fight over things that aren't worth as much these days, like land, oil or gold, when you can just trade. Most of money comes from peace time commerce.

This seems accurate, but time will tell.

[Scramblejams]

when you can just trade

Peacetime commerce requires free waterways. Everyone can "just trade" because the U.S. Navy has guaranteed free navigation of the seas since Bretton Woods[1]. When America withdraws from its security obligations, others will fill the vacuum, with all the uncertainty that implies.

A national leader who fears being cut off from essential resources will very logically view war as an option.

Edit:

[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_Conference

[Broken_Hippo]

To be fair, the US doesn't exactly keep out uncertainty or anything like that. US military policy is subject to the whims of the current management - and no one can really expect the US to keep any sort of agreements at this point. Not only that, but enforcement seems to be more aimed at trying to show strength (ships in china seas) or sanctions, and less on making sure folks can trade or have safety.

I'd argue that the real reason for being able to "just trade" is simply that most countries aren't interested in warring and impeding this: The agreement works out for many. The organizations set up at Bretton Woods would be in place even if the US fails completely.

[Scramblejams]

the US doesn't exactly keep out uncertainty

Sure it does. Every dictator knows that if he builds up a little navy to extract advantage over his neighbors by claiming sea lanes, there's a good chance he'll get smacked down by the world's largest navy. Navies are expensive to build, and this threat keeps most (exception: China) from even trying. That creates certainty for shippers, their customers, their insurance companies, and the economies in which they operate.

no one can really expect the US to keep any sort of agreements

To the extent you're correct, national leaders will feel the need to build up their own navies. If the US isn't going to protect their sea lanes, they will be forced to take on that responsibility themselves.

most countries aren't interested in warring

Most. What about the others? All it takes is one bully in your neighborhood to cause serious problems. Will the enlightened nations of the world come to your rescue? Maybe. Maybe not. It may cost you.

The organizations set up at Bretton Woods would be in place even if the US fails completely.

Bretton Woods is an agreement, and an agreement is only as good as its enforcement. Free global trade can only happen as long as someone enforces it, by keeping those sea lanes open. When the US withdraws, how long before a country decides it can exploit that insecurity to its advantage?

I do not share your optimism.

If the US cedes the sea, every other oceangoing nation will be forced to build up its navy to preserve its trade security. More armed ships at sea under more flags will lead to more flashpoints, more clashes, and more opportunities for small conflicts to spin out of control.

Withdrawing from the sea may turn out to be the smart move for the US, but I believe it will portend bad things for the rest of the world.

[ntsplnkv2]

> seems to be more aimed at trying to show strength (ships in china seas)

They're showing strength because they want to keep the waterways open for international use.

> and less on making sure folks can trade or have safety.

The US has plenty of anti-piracy efforts across the globe.

[XorNot]

Cut off by who though, and why? Denying what?

These questions don't exist in a vacuum, and wars are terrible ways to secure resources as the US's adventurism in the Middle East has shown.

If your goal is say, oil, it's still cheaper to just buy it.

[some_random]

>wars are terrible ways to secure resources as the US's adventurism in the Middle East has shown.

Perhaps US action in ME gasp isn't to seize physical resources then?

[vagrantJin]

Pardon my colorful language and preaching.

> the U.S. Navy has guaranteed free navigation

The sea has never belonged to anyone but this statement implies that the US has ownership rights with regards to ocean usage that they now let others use at their whim.

The only word I can use to describe that is hubris

[jjk166]

The fact that the sea does not belog to anyone is exactly why the US guarantees free navigation. If someone tries to seize your property in a nation's territory, you can go to that nation's government for restitution. They'll police their territory and prevent would-be thieves or other bad actors. At the very least, you can bring a suit against the bad actor and the government will force them to comply with the court's decision.

However on the open sea, there is no such authority. What's to stop someone from sailing up and seizing your crew and cargo? You don't know the nationality of these pirates, and even if you did you have no way of forcing their government to do anything about it. Indeed they may be working for that government. You could try to defend yourself, but then the pirates will just better arm themselves and the odds of violence escalating dramatically increases.

Someone needs to prevent piracy and unlawful seizure for international shipping to be possible at its current scale. Having a single power guarantee free navigation allows ships to cross the world while avoiding complicated jurisdiction divides (if one nation won't give you permission to sail through its waters, you can go around) and eliminates jurisdictional overlap (Country A says Country B's ship is committing piracy and vice versa) which could lead to conflict. It's also just more efficient as the vast majority of nations don't need to duplicate the infrastructure to maintain a navy that can protect assets on the other side of the world - which also means countries don't need to enter arms races to protect themselves from their neighbors' defensive fleets "just in case" they aren't really that defensive.

[vagrantJin]

Yes. Yes. This sounds like a regurgitation of an American view of international trade law and treaties therein. International waters should be policed by international organisations or do you find a flaw in that logic? Not the UN, not NATO, an international body independent of any single state.

> Having a single power guarantee free navigation allows ships to cross the world while avoiding complicated jurisdiction divides

So the rest of us are to assume the US taxpayer and their government are acting in good faith? nothing in return for having all those ships and men out there for months at a time? Whats the cost to the US for protecting assets from Guinea-Bissau?

> Someone needs to prevent piracy and unlawful seizure for international shipping to be possible at its current scale

I don't think you get the gist of my argument. To put it simply, to whom does the US account in their capacity as police of international waters?

Who said the US must be that 'someone'? Even the UN - if we won't kid ourselves is a US institution - might have been acceptable. A single power's whims are to be trusted for what reason? How do we know they wont collaborate with Pirates and other bad actors? Who will bring them to book or answer questions?

[jjk166]

I do find a flaw in that logic. International waters are not and should not be under anyone's authority. The system the US implements, like the one which proceeded it, is a fundamentally decentralized system. The US guarantees free navigation, but there's nothing stopping any other nation from doing so as well. China could, Russia could, Guinea-Bissau could. Indeed, the US is not the only nation engaged in anti-piracy operations. You don't need the US to act in good faith, the system is stable in that every country doing what is in their own best interest is also in everyone else's best interest. Really, every nation should independently guarantee free navigation, but luckily that is unnecessary.

In practice the US has such an immense navy that while it guarantees free navigation there is no real need for other nations to, and if it were to oppose free navigation there is no navy that could stop it, so at the moment the US de facto decides if free navigation is guaranteed, but there is nothing de jure entrenching the US in that position - should it ever derelict its duties or otherwise grow weak there is nothing stopping another nation, or group of nations, from taking up the mantle.

On the other hand if an international body were to be set up to do the job, then we become totally reliant on its efficacy. It's impossible to have a truly independent organization - the people who compose it, as well as the people who provide material resources to it, are not independent and unbiased - and unlike a nation which benefits from the trade it protects, this organization's only incentive would be to appease its backers. Even if it avoided malicious corruption, it would fundamentally entrench the geopolitical status quo, and getting everyone to agree to remove it may be impossible even if it strays woefully far from its mission.

The US's position may rub a lot of people the wrong way, they see the US as being some sort of self-appointed overlord and fear if it has nefarious intent. They fail to realize the level of gross indifference that the US has towards the larger world. We just want to be able to import cheap crap, any benefit to other nations is purely ancillary, and we will continue on our course for precisely as long as it is the easiest way of maintaining our steady supply of cheap crap.

[barry-cotter]

Before the US the sea belonged to Great Britain. Now it belongs to the US.

[Ancapistani]

I don’t have a citation in front of me at four in the morning, but I distinctly recall this exact argument being made prior to the First World War - that the increasing trade between the major powers precluded war because the financial interests were too powerful.

[pydry]

It sort of did, which is why the first step towards war was trade decoupling.

I'd say we are in the beginning/mid stages of that now.

[AnimalMuppet]

Interesting. I recall the idea that wars come when the money spent on the military exceeds the money made in trade. I don't recall how much evidence there is behind the idea, but I think it's an interesting POV...

[kubanczyk]

The elephant in the room is nuclear weapons. Take a hard look when the history actually changed.

As long as politicians didn't fear for their own precious lives, they didn't mind throwing heaps of others' lives to shift the balance of power by 1%. They weren't starting these wars for merely economical value of land or money - it was always about (non-economical) value of power. Since 1945-1949, the stakes are suddenly too high and that's why don't have major wars anymore.

[aeternum]

Nuclear weapons is significant, but recently I've been considering how much information also plays a part.

Information about other powers is much more accessible now and spying is easier given the internet. If they weaker power knew beforehand that they were in fact weaker, it makes no sense to challenge.

[adwn]

> [...] because the global economy has shifted from one of physical resources to knowledge based

...except for that tiny detail where we're still critically dependent on raw materials that can only be economically extracted in certain parts of the world.

Maybe mathematicians only need a blackboard and some chalk to do their work, but the remaining "knowledge based" economy needs computers, of which many parts are produced in a country [1] which is claimed by another country [2] that's been growing increasingly aggressive in recent years.

[1] Taiwan.

[2] China.

[XorNot]

You can't plausibly wage a destructive war to seize industrial facilities likely to be disrupted or destroyed in said war. Factories and their workers are intellectual resources.

Whereas with raw materials, like rare earths: China has a lock on rare earth's because they're willing to completely destroy their own land's to get them, not because they're actually "rare".

We are arguably in a local minima with regards to rare earth extraction because nothing has pushed us to automate the human element out of it and they're not needed in sufficient quantity yet.

[barry-cotter]

except for that tiny detail where we're still critically dependent on raw materials that can only be economically extracted in certain parts of the world.

That’s a contingent, not a necessary fact. The Haber-Bosch process was invented to provide nitrogen for German armaments faced with the same kinds of difficulties. If you really need something the fact that it just got ten times more expensive matters very little.

[bigmattystyles]

And to boot, mathematicians tend to prefer Japanese chalk, so even that...

[taneq]

Yeah, but they CAN do their work with a pencil, or even a crayon. That particular brand of Japanese chalk just happens to be nice.

[jeffreyrogers]

Maybe for now, but there's no way that is going to be true in 10-20 years. Resources are going to get more and more important as high grade ore deposits (needed for the nickel, copper, etc. that go into renewable energy tech) are concentrated in politically unstable regions (Congo, Central Asia, Russia). Couple that with even moderate economic growth in the developing world and you are going to see EU/USA, China, Russia, etc. all trying to secure access to these important resources.

[waihtis]

Exactly so. It requires just one suitable black swan event to destabilize an entire continent.

Extreme events are really badly understood by many popular writers as demonstrated by Harari's 2016 book "Homo Deus" which stated pandemics are a thing of the past.

[jacksonkmarley]

It is accurate for dealings between liberal democracies, but I don't think you can take this approach to states who operate according to a different paradigm. Otherwise you will just be helpless when authoritarian regimes become aggressive.

[patcon]

Seems accurate, at least until increasingly extractive trading (which externalizes almost all costs), leads to the collapse of the ecological systems underneath it. Then we're back to good old fashioned war-war :/

[lovelyviking]

What do you mean “time will tell”? It doesn’t tell already? Now when Russia have occupied parts of Ukraine?

[sudhirj]

Without condoning it, that wasn't an all out war. It's a really complicated situation and seems more like a political action. Less people were killed than in the Capitol breach, don't think anyone is referring to that as the second civil war.

[gattilorenz]

> Less people were killed than in the Capitol breach

If the OP refers to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War there's thousands of deaths involved

[Scramblejams]

Less people were killed than in the Capitol breach

How do you figure that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Ukrainian_cr...

[cosmodisk]

While I agree with you that it's purely political, it's a war nonetheless. The Capitol breach resulted in 5 deaths, while it took more than 13000 lives in Ukraine. If it's not a war, then we can safely assume that even a villager in Ukraine has accessed to military grade equipment that even some countries can't get access to.

[sudhirj]

I assumed the post was referring to the annexation of Crimea, that was mostly bloodless.

[lovelyviking]

It would be not bloodless if Ukrainian soldiers would not try by all possible means to avoid the shooting, trying to treat russians as former brothers and stop russia’s hostile actions by negiotiations.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zIbGpSvtuGY