No, they are saying that the best option for peace is to make yourself so formidable that nobody wants to go to war with you. The point is NOT to go to war. It's just that the argument isn't disarming, it's the opposite, however counter-intuitive that might seem.
Reciprocally, it's not hard to envision how an overly-zealous military-industrial complex could promote the wrong ideas at-large. The Lavander AI's recent coverage is a good example of why you shouldn't stoke the flames of information-fetishizing warmongers.
I could see it as saying that the peace activists are on a path that will not actually lead to peace, but rather to war, and those preparing for war are on a path that will actually lead to peace.
"If you wish for peace, prepare for war" is an old way of phrasing this. It's not a new thought.
Please clarify? I don't know if war is "legitimate" but it's a fact of life even for something as innocuous as two flocks of cute parrots. Not to mention ant colonies, chimp factions etc.
This is the generous parsing of what Luckey et al were saying. The "war is illegitimate" crowd the ones they were mocking as disconnected from reality. (Albeit, in a nice way.)
It's easy to mock when it's caricaturized. And, so is the ”War is peace" position when taken to the extremes by perma-hawks, who've never seen a problem that couldn't be solved with an explosion.
As often, the solution lies in the middle. We do need strength as deterrent, but over-focus on this leads to an infinitely escalating need for more strength.
But let's be clear: war is illegitimate. That we have not found a better way to resolve conflict does not legitimize it. Killing people with whom you disagree at-scale is insane on its face.
I believe many nation leaders, especially those who ruled in very tumultuous times, would absolutely love it if war was not an option but alas, we have to comply with reality. We've also seen what happens to pacifists, sooner or later they get conquered.
No doubt. And, I've personally become more hawkish in these times. You'll see me arguing elsewhere that the West needs to be more aggressive in supporting Ukraine. I understand that we can't just lay down arms now. It's more about whether we want this to be the status quo for conflict resolution. It's just not an aspirational worldview.
So, my superficial point was that the full reasoning rests on itself. It's circular and self-serving, so it's not surprising who most often repeats it. And, if that's the footing you accept, then it will always be your footing.
The slightly deeper point was that these little memetic sayings (and the posture they support) become a self-perpetuating construction that exaggerate the effectiveness of raw might, while short-circuiting the legitimacy of other options. We see around the World effective resistance to great power.
So, it's the promotion of a kind of persistent war-footing wherein perceived military strength becomes the only lens through which all conflict is sorted. Hence, it de-emphasizes the complexity of the world and the search for solutions that can persist because they rest on more sustainable solutions beyond subjugation.
TLDR; if we emphasize peace through war above all else then we will continue to have more war than peace.
The argument I'm making is a little more nuanced than the world, and certainly HN, likes these days.
I'm not suggesting that we just declare it illegitimate and lay down our arms. I'm suggesting that the mantra, "if you want peace then prepare for war" rests on the premise that war is a legitimate way to resolve conflict. And, once you've made that decision, it becomes effectively the only way, and guarantees more war.
OTOH, if you consider that it is not, then it leaves space for prioritizing other approaches.
This does not deny the current reality of war. Think of it as aspirational.
If you think the world is better off with the US as a global policing power then one could argue that having an overwhelming force is key to sustaining peace.
So war isn't peace but being 10x stronger than everyone can be.
"The result for citizens in the US is disastrous. It mirrors the decline of the Roman Empire, which spent extravagantly on its legions, and the only growth came from conquering other peoples, looting them, and taxing them. This threat could not be sustained forever, and so the gold and silver coins were reduced in precious metal content, and the treasury (like the USA, which just prints money like a never-ending waterfall) created debased coins, resulting in inflation.
Just as the US doesn't invest in infrastructure the way other countries do or have an efficient nationalized healthcare system.
Why? We burn trillions on military and weapons. The military-industrial complex must be fed, and it is always hungry.
Think about retirement, healthcare costs, and the greedflation by corporations, as well as the government taxing your Social Security. It is intentional cruelty."
> War against enemies such ISIS is indeed leading to peace
Better example is nuclear deterrence, which has effectively ended direct great power state-on-state conflict. War is never peace. But preparing for war protects an existing one.