As a fellow economist, I share your aversion to the negative sum activity of war. However, the motivation of warfare are frequently is frequently non-rational, e.g. national honor. I am haunted by a statement by Robert E. Lee quoted in the book, Bloody Roads South. This book chronicles Grant's campaign across northern Virginia in the Spring of 1864. The Army of the Potomac bulldozed its way across Virginia. Grant ignored the many tactical defeats they suffered, in order to achieve the strategic victory of investing Richmond. Lee recognized this and told Jefferson Davis, "If Grant reaches the James, it will be just a matter of time." Mind you, this was a full year before his surrender at Appomattox. Why did the Confederacy not negotiate a settlement then? Honor. Thousands of soldiers on both sides and uncounted southern civilians died in that year. Sacrificed on the altar of HONOR. (This likely includes some of my North Carolina ancestors.)
Max Hastings' Retribution tells a similar story about the war in the Pacific. Japan lost the war at Midway.Yamamoto understood this but the demands of bushido prevented negotiation of a peace let alone negotiated surrender. As the Allied powers encountered the meaning of bushido, the turn to retribution was hard to resist.
Why do [some/many] sociologists have such a blind spot over the roots of our evolution? It seems incomprehensible and akin to the religious idea that humans a special - directly created by G*d's hand.
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.
I'm generally a pacifist, but wars aren't always negative sum. Voigtländer and Voth's "Gifts of Mars: Warfare and Europe’s Early Rise to Riches" argues that one reason for Europe's success was its constant warfare. War itself killed people. The associated displacement transmitted disease that killed even more people. This kept Europe away from any Malthusian maximum and led, in the long term, to a wealthier society. I'm not 100% sold, but it's food for thought.
Wars can be both disasters and important drivers of progress. Modern warfare especially requires an alignment of the elite and the populace, so it can force the elite to offer the general population a better deal when faced with potential destruction and replacement by another elite. Modern wars also drive technology, and they put money in the hands of a broader spectrum of the population. War may be a failure of the elite, but it is also a countervailing force.
Wars can be decisive. Was the American South going to remain a slaving society? Were fascism and its kin superior systems destined to rule the world? Could an East Asian island nation build an empire in the manner of the European great powers? Who will rule China? The unfortunate fact is that violence works. Moral victories are wonderful, but they aren't necessarily victories. I think it is wonderful when important things can be decided without military action, but sometimes a war can answer important questions.
Wars inflict horrors. They have their own horrible logic. Once engaged, they are beyond peace and diplomacy. Crossing the Rubicon wasn't just a metaphor. Crossing a certain line takes one into a different realm of logic such as it is. Look at the Vikings and their tales of endless feuds with their cause lost in time but still ruling the fate of the living. Before crossing that line, it pays to investigate the alternatives, but sometimes there is little choice but to roll the bones.
So how does this apply to current conflicts in Israel/Palestine and Ukraine? How should have parties acted and how should they act going forward. How should the US support or walk away?
Interesting line of thoughts. Governments create a pretense and people come to participate. Regular soldiers are not mercenary armies, so receive no bounty. It says something about human nature which this audience seems to see through. Like all contact sports, there is something emotionally satisfying about dominating an opponent into submission. There is also a satisfaction from modern leaders who direct the strategy from behind. Afterwards we analyze the successes and failures from an academic level. It happens in sports, too.
There is an important factor missing from your analysis. Gambling is also a negative sum activity and yet it is no mystery why the house reliably profits from it. "Negative sum" does not imply "strictly negative for all participants", and until the modern era (perhaps the 19th century?) it was normal for victors to profit from war even if on average everyone was worse off. That also explains why the "aggressee" doesn't simply "strike the best bargain it could": historically (I mean in terms of human history rather than the written record), the best bargain was annihilation.
It is really only the nature of the modern economic system that makes war an unprofitable activity all around, which is an odd fact for an economist to overlook.
While the economics of war is a net negative, it does have some plusses. Technological advance was accelerated, especially during WWII. The bombing blitz of London resulted in a lot of slums in the East End of Lundon to be demolished and replaced. The saturation bombing of Germany must have been even better at clearing away old properties. While this might be an extreme version of the "broken window fallacy", the replacement housing generally was more modern and better for living. In Britain, and certainly in germany and Japan, the post WWII period was time of both good economic growth and changed politics. I think Krugman said that WWII was instrumental in ending the Great Depression in the US. What would have been the counterfactual for the next 30 years if WWII had not be fought?
Viewing war as an economic issue is only relevant to rational resource users. The Nazis wanted to get rid of all non-Aryan races, not to mention "l;ebensraum" by acquiring land in Eastern Europe. Muslims once wanted Christendom to be either converted to Islam or subjugated. The US Civil War was over slavery (mostly), and the English Civil War was over the power of the King vs Parliament. Ideology, religion, and similar motives are not subject to rational economic analysis. Humans are tribal. Humans are emotional, despite the myth of the "Rational Man". We have evolved from animals that do not have the cognitive tools to evaluate consequences beyond the immediate - more food and security for the "winners" of conflict now, not to mention more offspring driven by the imperative of gene replication.
It's not clear that war provides a population check. World populattion went from 2.3 billion in 1940 to 2.5 billion in 1950 despite WWII. Napoleon liked to point out that one night of passion in Paris would yield enough future soldiers to cancel out his losses in a given battle.
As a fellow economist, I share your aversion to the negative sum activity of war. However, the motivation of warfare are frequently is frequently non-rational, e.g. national honor. I am haunted by a statement by Robert E. Lee quoted in the book, Bloody Roads South. This book chronicles Grant's campaign across northern Virginia in the Spring of 1864. The Army of the Potomac bulldozed its way across Virginia. Grant ignored the many tactical defeats they suffered, in order to achieve the strategic victory of investing Richmond. Lee recognized this and told Jefferson Davis, "If Grant reaches the James, it will be just a matter of time." Mind you, this was a full year before his surrender at Appomattox. Why did the Confederacy not negotiate a settlement then? Honor. Thousands of soldiers on both sides and uncounted southern civilians died in that year. Sacrificed on the altar of HONOR. (This likely includes some of my North Carolina ancestors.)
Max Hastings' Retribution tells a similar story about the war in the Pacific. Japan lost the war at Midway.Yamamoto understood this but the demands of bushido prevented negotiation of a peace let alone negotiated surrender. As the Allied powers encountered the meaning of bushido, the turn to retribution was hard to resist.
"Mann believes in his bones that war is a social construction—a human social practice."
It is a pity that is refuted by the fact that Chimpanzee groups go to war with each other.
https://www.science.org/content/article/why-do-chimps-kill-each-other
Why do [some/many] sociologists have such a blind spot over the roots of our evolution? It seems incomprehensible and akin to the religious idea that humans a special - directly created by G*d's hand.
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.
I'm generally a pacifist, but wars aren't always negative sum. Voigtländer and Voth's "Gifts of Mars: Warfare and Europe’s Early Rise to Riches" argues that one reason for Europe's success was its constant warfare. War itself killed people. The associated displacement transmitted disease that killed even more people. This kept Europe away from any Malthusian maximum and led, in the long term, to a wealthier society. I'm not 100% sold, but it's food for thought.
Wars can be both disasters and important drivers of progress. Modern warfare especially requires an alignment of the elite and the populace, so it can force the elite to offer the general population a better deal when faced with potential destruction and replacement by another elite. Modern wars also drive technology, and they put money in the hands of a broader spectrum of the population. War may be a failure of the elite, but it is also a countervailing force.
Wars can be decisive. Was the American South going to remain a slaving society? Were fascism and its kin superior systems destined to rule the world? Could an East Asian island nation build an empire in the manner of the European great powers? Who will rule China? The unfortunate fact is that violence works. Moral victories are wonderful, but they aren't necessarily victories. I think it is wonderful when important things can be decided without military action, but sometimes a war can answer important questions.
Wars inflict horrors. They have their own horrible logic. Once engaged, they are beyond peace and diplomacy. Crossing the Rubicon wasn't just a metaphor. Crossing a certain line takes one into a different realm of logic such as it is. Look at the Vikings and their tales of endless feuds with their cause lost in time but still ruling the fate of the living. Before crossing that line, it pays to investigate the alternatives, but sometimes there is little choice but to roll the bones.
So how does this apply to current conflicts in Israel/Palestine and Ukraine? How should have parties acted and how should they act going forward. How should the US support or walk away?
I’ve also heard good things about the late Bear Braumoeller’s “Only the Dead,” arguing against Pinker.
Interesting line of thoughts. Governments create a pretense and people come to participate. Regular soldiers are not mercenary armies, so receive no bounty. It says something about human nature which this audience seems to see through. Like all contact sports, there is something emotionally satisfying about dominating an opponent into submission. There is also a satisfaction from modern leaders who direct the strategy from behind. Afterwards we analyze the successes and failures from an academic level. It happens in sports, too.
There is an important factor missing from your analysis. Gambling is also a negative sum activity and yet it is no mystery why the house reliably profits from it. "Negative sum" does not imply "strictly negative for all participants", and until the modern era (perhaps the 19th century?) it was normal for victors to profit from war even if on average everyone was worse off. That also explains why the "aggressee" doesn't simply "strike the best bargain it could": historically (I mean in terms of human history rather than the written record), the best bargain was annihilation.
It is really only the nature of the modern economic system that makes war an unprofitable activity all around, which is an odd fact for an economist to overlook.
I would recommend Azar Gat's book on the subject.
While the economics of war is a net negative, it does have some plusses. Technological advance was accelerated, especially during WWII. The bombing blitz of London resulted in a lot of slums in the East End of Lundon to be demolished and replaced. The saturation bombing of Germany must have been even better at clearing away old properties. While this might be an extreme version of the "broken window fallacy", the replacement housing generally was more modern and better for living. In Britain, and certainly in germany and Japan, the post WWII period was time of both good economic growth and changed politics. I think Krugman said that WWII was instrumental in ending the Great Depression in the US. What would have been the counterfactual for the next 30 years if WWII had not be fought?
Is all war negative sum? It depends on who is doing the summation. Remember the Book of Joshua.
Viewing war as an economic issue is only relevant to rational resource users. The Nazis wanted to get rid of all non-Aryan races, not to mention "l;ebensraum" by acquiring land in Eastern Europe. Muslims once wanted Christendom to be either converted to Islam or subjugated. The US Civil War was over slavery (mostly), and the English Civil War was over the power of the King vs Parliament. Ideology, religion, and similar motives are not subject to rational economic analysis. Humans are tribal. Humans are emotional, despite the myth of the "Rational Man". We have evolved from animals that do not have the cognitive tools to evaluate consequences beyond the immediate - more food and security for the "winners" of conflict now, not to mention more offspring driven by the imperative of gene replication.
Thank you for these gifts!
So what is the bottom line? Read 'em both? Mann sounds extremely interesting and broad, Blattmann summarizable.
It's not clear that war provides a population check. World populattion went from 2.3 billion in 1940 to 2.5 billion in 1950 despite WWII. Napoleon liked to point out that one night of passion in Paris would yield enough future soldiers to cancel out his losses in a given battle.