Is War Over? — A Paradox Explained

Violence and war. The insane brutality of ISIS continues, the Russians are invading Ukraine, and the Palestinians and Israelis continue to slug it out. Does that make you feel gloomy? Well don't. Because if you look at the numbers war actually seems to be going out of fashion, while the global population is at an all time high. It seems that we live in the most peaceful period in human history. How is this possible? (music) As of September 2014, there were 4 conflicts going on in the world that'd caused at least 10,000 people to die since January 2013. 9 conflicts that killed more than 1,000 people and 13 that killed more than 100 since January 2013. Not really peaceful, but consider this: of all the conflicts going on none is an active war between countries. They are either civil wars or local conflicts. Although civil wars are terrible and cause huge suffering, their impact is usually way smaller than a war between nations or empires. When two nations engage in war, they can mobilise much bigger forces, have access to all of the state's resources and logistics and almost all of the population. So why have we transitioned from wars between nation states wars between nation states A lot of it is to do with colonialism and the cold war. When the cold war ended, a major driver of armed conflicts vanished too. But the break up of the communist dictatorships revealed new or old tensions and brought new conflicts in the now freed states which often resulted in civil war. Much more importantly, in 1945, nearly all of Africa, much of Asia, and parts of Latin America were under colonial rule. By 1990, all but a few islands were independent. But wait. Couldn't you argue that what today's multinational corporations are doing in the third world is just as bad as colonialism? Let's look at Congo. It was established as a colony in 1885 by the Belgium king. An area 80 times the size of Belgium. Violence committed against the indigenous Congolese and the ruthless system of economic exploitation had killed about half of the population by 1908. About 10 million Congolese were executed or starved to death. Millions were mutilated and traumatised. The economic exploitation of the Congo remained the top priority and forced labor never really ceased completely until the end of Belgium rule in 1960. Which is not really that long ago. So, no. Colonialism was much worse than vulture capitalism is today and it ended just two generations ago. Most of the conflicts that are going on right now are in areas that 60 years ago were under foreign control. But things are getting better. Until 1989, victory for one side in a civil war was common while nowadays victories are much rarer. At the same time, negotiated endings have jumped from 10% to almost 40%. What about the rest of the world? Why have nation states stopped attacking each other? There are 4 major reasons: One. Democratisation. The steady development from autocracy to democracy. Democracies hardly ever fight each other. Of all the state against state wars fought since 1900, only a minority were fought between democracies. Two. Globalisation. War is just not as effective at achieving economic goals as it used to be. Today it's almost always cheaper to buy resources on the global market than to cease them by force. People from other nations are more valuable to us alive than dead. Which, overall, is a pretty new concept. Three. War is so 20th century. Until World War I, warfare was seen as an inevitable part of the human experience and as a valuable tool which you could use to achieve goals when diplomacy hit a brick wall. Today we have rules that declare acts of aggression illegal and stipulate that armed forces is only justified in self-defence or with the authority of the UN Security Council. These rules are still broken but today it's harder to do so without sparking oppositions and disapproval. Also, we have an international court for war crimes in The Hague. And that's a very recent innovation. Four. Borders are mostly fixed now. After World War II, territorial wars generally stopped when most countries pledged to accept international borders and respect other nations autonomy. But is all of this just an anomaly or are we on the road to lasting peace? Truth is we don't know yet. We need a big enough sample to rule out the historical average, which is about one or two big wars per century. We just haven't had enough time since World War II to rule out the possibility that war is not going away. If we don't have one major war in the next 75 years, we can be really confident that humanity is changing. So you see, war might be over. Yes there are nasty conflicts going on in many places but overall, things are getting better. And we can make them even better by speaking up for peace and democracy. Subtitles by the Amara.org community

Channel: Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell

Views: 10,291,723

Rating: 4.8375454 out of 5

Keywords: War (Quotation Subject), Ever, Worst, war, iraq, peace, Syria (Country), isis, civil war, Best, History, human, world population, death, live, horror, conflict, ukraine, russia, United States Of America (Country), Soviet Union (Country), colonialism, Belgium (Country), infographic, controversy, congo, africa, cold war, funny, animation, flat design, Barack Obama (US President), kurzgesagt, killing, us, me, world, earth, Human Rights (Quotation Subject), World War II (Military Conflict), world war III

Id: NbuUW9i-mHs

Length: 5min 45sec (345 seconds)

Published: Thu Oct 09 2014

Reddit Comments

[u/jackrabbitfat]

Cool animation.

Naughtybad Belgians.

[u/[deleted]]

This is an incredibly misleading piece on a number of levels. It presents as truth one particular branch of International Relations theory, rather than acknowledging a number of other explanations that are equally valid. Moreover, it presents statistics in very selective scope, which means it tells only part of the story.

Lets start with valid theoretical alternatives Here's one :

Between the bipolar international balance of power during the cold war and the unipolar current world order, the inherent instability of multipolar Europe that triggered the two world wars is no longer present. As during the Pax Romana, the balance of power is so unitary right now that large scale conflict between great powers is impossible - because there is only one.

States, as rational actors, won't select to fight against the monopole because they stand no chance of victory, and their interests are therefore not served by seeking conflict with it.

Here's another:

The threat of the use of nuclear force serves as a stabilizing element in international conflict, because a nuclear armed state can respond to an existential threat with the use of its nuclear arsenal. This means that states are unable to engage in the kind of full-mobilization war that existed in the 18th and 19th century. As a result, conflicts are fought on a smaller scale and in proxy wars.

Here's a third:

Perception of other states has changed as the exchange of global information has lowered the barrier between people, nations, and the realities of warfare. As that perception change has occurred, the willingness of populations to go to war has diminished. As a result, only states that are viewed as outside the world community are the valid target of state violence. States who act outside of the international community as revisionist states remain in a state of open or simmering hostility (see Iran, North Korea, Russia) with neighboring powers - but states who are part of the international community are effectively safe.

Now, let's look at the facts presented here:

• War related deaths have decreased... If you disregard civilian deaths. Iraq War casualties may have been as high as 600,000 civilians. The Rwandan genocide cost between 500,000 and a million lives... Not counting the countergenocide committed after it. The death toll in Syria is above 191,000.

• Colonialism was worse than exploitative capitalism... For example, look at the Congo.... Which was the worst colony by a long shot. I agree with the point, but cold, hard facts are better than cherry-picking the worst case as if it were just another example, rather than the peak example of colonial abuse.

• Civil Wars are less lethal than interstate wars... Except, of course, for the US Civil War (750,000) or the Taiping Rebellion (20 million)... Or the Panthay Rebellion (1 million)... Or the Rwandan civil war (500,000 - 1 million)... Or the Congolese Civil War (1 - 5 million)... Of course, those were civilian deaths, so they must not count.

[u/JoyousTourist]

Started with this video, ended up watching the entire channel. Thanks for the share!

[u/willmaster123]

The chart he keeps on showing has been disproven quite a few times. In reality, there should be a MAJOR spike around 1998-2002 due to the 2nd Congo War (much larger than shown), and then another spike around 2011 due to Syria, Libya, and Somalia all erupting in warfare at the same time, a spike which really hasn't gone down.

Also, it has also been proven that the 1990s were by far the bloodiest decade since the 1940s, with three genocides and something like a dozen post-soviet state wars.

That being said, the 2000s were the most peaceful decade since the 1950s, with the only major wars being in Darfur and Iraq.

The 2010s are shaping up to be not nearly as peaceful, there is war in Mexico, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, Nigeria, Central African Republic, Gaza/Israel, Pakistan, Somalia, Mali, and a violent revolution in Egypt. Not to mention the rapidly rising murder rate in Brazil, Guatemala, and Venezuela, which have resulted in tens of thousands of deaths.

The majority of these conflicts are still raging in 2014, hence why they are not included in that chart, but it is very hard to say that war is over when four wars have erupted just this year.

[u/Comrade_Beric]

"Democracies rarely go to war against each other." The problem I have with that statement is that A) there's a sample bias in that most states in the sample size would not qualify as a "Democracy" by their definition, and B) it completely ignores the fact that in wars between a Democracy and a Dictatorship, the Democracy is the aggressor a rather surprisingly high percentage of the time. Assuming you count the US as a democracy, it has attacked more nations in the past century than any other, save possibly the axis powers. Saying democracy always leads to peace with that sort of knowledge feels similar to saying "it doesn't count when the target 'had it coming.'"

[u/Wikiwakagiligala]

I'm not sure that this video is as factual as it comes across. It gives a few possible reasons as to why, it doesn't give the reason or all the reasons. You could add a lot of possible reasons to this:

The spread of information with democracy has made people very aware of these events, back when Japan lost WWII many committed suicide, but today that wouldn't happen since people are aware of other cultures (multiculturalism + information) and also know they have power over politicians, whether the politicians acknowledge that power or not.

You could argue one culture already won (the west), when USA, UK, & France won WWII and overcame the cold war, their cultures decided the values of other societies and their power has created or destroyed countries on a whim. Or to put a darker spin on this, the West's military power is so overwhelming that they can easily remove any opposition or aggressors on a world scale if it is convenient, and they use this power to maintain a hierarchy with them on top, the countries below are abused for economic or political reasons.

Or you could attribute it to the end of imperialism, since countries have stopped trying to grab new land, borders have become well-defined. This makes most invasions pointless since they cannot hold onto the land by force. Domestic militias like ISIS/Al Qaeda will have difficulties functioning across such well defined borders when as a result they have to face another opposing government military.

[u/Gates9]

The calm before the storm

[u/zetiler]

There is coursera course right now, Brief History of Humankind. Just 2 hours ago I saw a segment about the decrease of the number wars nowadays. Reasons mentioned for this are:

1. Cost of war greatly increased, destruction is much easier with modern technology. This is especially true if one of the countries have nuclear weapon.

2. Profits decreased, most of wealth now are not so easily ceased as fields, livestock and mines before. Now most wealth, like bank accounts and skilled engineers will flee very soon.

3. Piece now have a lot of profits thanks to a lot of international trade and mutual cooperation. Before, disruption of small existing trade wasn't such a big deal.

4. Cultural reasons, wars are started to be considered evil and avoidable.

5. Most states are not independent enough to make a decision to go to war. With increasing connections there are global empire forming, and this global empire like all other empires don't like wars inside it borders. It takes form in US, World Bank and others having enough power to prevent any though of having independent decision to wage war in most countries.

As for this video, I don't thinks arguments like democracy and that we have some international court are very important. I think that If modern "democracy" decide that war is more profitable it will easily convince itself that it is just. Like populations of ancient Rome Republic or England Empire, which was not an absolute monarchy and not a dictatorship. International courts have as much power as it is given to them by somebody. Just having it means nothing until you have a single global military power to enforce it,

[u/Destinlegends]

ppls be too lazy to kill other ppls and some ppls be too lazy to die. Fucking kids with their rock and roll.