Share this comment
I would also recommend "War and Human Civilization" (2006) by Azar Gat. amazon.com/War-Human-Ci…
Unlike Mann, Gat argues there is something inherent in human nature that makes men prone to conflict. He notes this is true of other animal species as well, (such as chimpanzees.)
As noted, many historians have outlined the mistakes that lead t…
I would also recommend "War and Human Civilization" (2006) by Azar Gat. https://www.amazon.com/War-Human-Civilization-Azar-Gat/dp/0199236631
Unlike Mann, Gat argues there is something inherent in human nature that makes men prone to conflict. He notes this is true of other animal species as well, (such as chimpanzees.)
As noted, many historians have outlined the mistakes that lead to war. So why then do national leaders keep making these mistakes over and over again? My own theory is that men who rise to power tend to have big egos. They know their history as well as anyone, but they think they are special, and that the lessons of history don't apply to them. And so as Plato pointed out "Only the dead have seen the end of war."
There does seem to be some progress though. Wars like WWII seem to be unthinkable now a days. Strategic bombing is now viewed as immoral. So is excessive civilian casualties (although this gives an incentive for unscrupulous combatants to seize hostages and hide among civilians. The taboo on the use of nuclear weapons seems to still be in effect. But I'll admit all this "progress" may be an illusion.
I would suggest the situation in Gaza is akin to strategic bombing, and so is thinkable. Putin seems to think that the use of nuclear weapons is now "thinkable", but to be fair, Reagan was apparently prepared to use "battlefield nukes" in the 1980s, and US presidents haven't exactly pursued disarmament in teh C21st. Rational thinkers and war gamers know that escalation to nukes is likely in any serious conflict. We are lucky Kruschev backed down over the Cuban Missile Crisis. Didn't Churchill want to nuke Moscow in when the West had nukes but before the Soviets did?
My guess is that as time goes on, the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be forgotten, just as other hard lessons seem to be forgotten after 2-3 generations, and some idot will think "this time is different" and catastrophe will be upon us. For a while it seemed that Idia and Pakistan might be the first to break the nuclear weapon taboo. Then Israel apparently suggested Iran was a good target for a nuclear attack. North Korea is just plain crazy and threatens Seoul.
Want to bet that tensions won't result in the use of these "toys"- possibly in what remains of my lifetime? It probably won't be a good idea to survive a nuclear attack.