yeah, I agree in this case. But maybe with a more rational actor this would prove effective. Or maybe I'm deluding myself because rational actors don't launch wars to begin with.
Deterrence presumes rational actors. One side in this conflict is rational. The other side, decidedly irrational, acting not in their best interests, harming themselves and many others specifically to attack the rational actor.
Aside from that, the real issue is that the irrational side has not yet conceded that they lost their war, 70+ years ago, against the rational actor, who had established a state. They instigated that war, as they did not wish the rational actor to have that state. They are aided in their irrationality by various NGOs, and have managed to perpetuate and sustain their presumed victimhood, by attacking, with literal impunity, the rational actor.
Now, here, you are suggesting that maybe, the rational actor should be restricted in their response to the irrational actor as it may bring the rational actor to the negotiating table. Which of course, completely neglects all the times the rational actor sat at the negotiating table with the irrational actor, hammered things most of the way out, and watched the irrational actor breach every single agreement.
So ...
What we have here has nothing to do with rational actor deciding enough is enough, and developing tech to reasonably neutralize the threat the irrational actor poses. Arguing against this de minimus effort, as it might bring the rational actor back to the table (in your mind) if they had to rely on sticks and stones ... is pretty much the definition of ludicrous.
The rational actor has tried, for 70+ years, to get the irrational actor to work with it. And has been met with bloodshed, the irrational actor targeting civilians, which, is a real war crime, as compared to the BS alleged by the irrational actor, in their attempt to get the world to ostracize the rational actor.
Exactly how, would this time be different? What would the irrational actor offer to jump start discussions? Because it is obvious from the last 70+ years that the underlying thesis of "land for peace" has not worked.
A different approach was, and is needed. As much as I hate giving Trump credit, what he did was to change the parameters, which allowed other nations to get off the ledge with the irrational actor. This is, in turn, putting pressure on the irrational actor to begin acting rationally. Those actions need to continue.
This all said, implying you wish to disarm a people who have armed themselves specifically to prevent mass slaughter at the hands of a losing side irrational non-nation state actor ... yeah ... not really a sound argument in any context.
Besides the points made already, it's IMO misleading to think about what's rational for a country as a whole. A war can be rational for the coalition in power in one of the countries without it being expected-positive-sum even for that country. (Never mind pure mistakes.) This is historically common, I'd guess more common than not.
It bugs me that thinking of states as rational actors is called "foreign policy realism".
Are you suggesting that it is acceptable to force neutral parties into a war? Or are you trying to negotiate with your enemies for the right to bomb them? I'm not sure I say any reasonable interpretation of that proposal.
The whole idea is that potential damage is so high that it makes no sense to start conflict. MAD so far worked good enough to prevent major powers from going to war.
Ok, maybe 'absolutely prevents' should be 'mostly prevents' - the key part is the rational actor bit. If the guy at the steering wheel cares less about the prosperity of his country and his personal wellbeing than he does about fulfilling a czarist power fantasy before he croaks the system is less effective. But I suppose there are very few disincentives to war that would help in that situation.
Sure, on paper this looks rational but there's some pretty extreme historical...context...between the two countries. It could be overcome eventually but I wouldn't put money on that universe making any more sense than our own.
I like this idea in theory, but in practice I'm not sure if it does much to prevent major conflict.
If I recall correctly, the "interconnectedness" of Europe of the Early 1900s was thought to be the reason that a large war was not possible.
Perhaps increased trade will help nations to settle smaller disputes via diplomacy but the outbreak of war seems to be something can defy rational explanation. That is, we can't always expect that the leaders and citizens of aggressor countries are making rational decisions.
A better analogy might be detaining a ship or in international waters or implementing a blockade such as the Cuban missile crisis. It is technically casus belli, but rarely does it get escalated that far. Rational actors don't really want to start a war over an incident that doesn't even involve their sovereign territory.
Yes it’s just an emergent state of two or more actors doing the somewhat sensible thing (not wanting their own people to be annihilated). The question is still why this wouldn’t work, since it did work (albeit very riskily) through the entire Cold War. AFAICT no relevant variable has changed.
This is only because we and our allies don't face an existential threat from our adversaries. It'd likely be much more effective to, say, ruthlessly hunt down and murder the extended families and friend networks of known terrorists or insurgents to discourage terrorism and uprisings, but the diplomatic cost of such actions in what amount to wars of choice is too high, and it would do too much damage to our narrative of "good guys versus bad guys". We're bad at fighting these types of groups because we choose to be bad at it, because the narrative matters more than winning—the cost of losing, or at least of a perpetual draw, isn't nearly as high as the cost of winning using effective but brutal strategies. In a "real" war, that likely wouldn't be true.
Give us an actual threat and we'll go right back to flattening cities and firebombing civilians in no time.
(note: I'm not advocating these tactics, I just think our relative restraint is a consequence of our position in current geopolitics, not of some ethical enlightenment on our part)
That argument is flawed. You can destroy each other, so what? Everybody loses. We know that some countries have their weapons ready to go at the will of a single person or very few. What if that leader becomes crazy or incapable of reasoning? Your subs you't protect you in that scenario.
There are so many other ways you can prevent such attacks. Diplomacy, commerce, keeping good relations, etc. The threat of an axe on your neck makes it hard to look like you have good intentions in the first place.
I'm sure people do, but they're wrong. There are always situations in which the use of force is rationally self interested. As such, as long as those situations exist, a rational people will maintain and use war capability. Asking people not to go to war is asking them to put emotion (empathy) above rationality. You can do it to a degree, but only to an extent.
Indeed, US hegemony is good for peace. You can eliminate the rational self interest in going to war by imposing an external cost to going to war (like any negative externality). That's the role the US serves. Its military machine implicitly backs things like international sanctions that are punishment for anti-social behavior.
Actually I know what you mean, but on the other side of things, thinking that getting involved in absolutely every conflict is a good idea... I do not know, I do not see it as a good solution honestly.
The problem with this sort of logic is that it becomes incredibly easy to bait states into disproportionate responses that end up as strategic failures - either due to bad PR or deploying force against decoy attacks and leaving holes in places that matter.
reply