Hi Haris, thanks for this. I agree that it’s useful to tackle such complicated questions from a variety of approaches.
I’ve written a little bit about interconnectedness and democratization here. I agree they exert some influence on the likelihood of conflict. I do think that the pacifying effects of interconnectedness are somewhat overrated. The economic costs of going to war against any given trade partner are usually small relative to a country’s total GDP and the potential gains, material and symbolic, from fighting.
And while I find the evidence for a democratic peace surprisingly strong, it has limited bearing on the possibility of a major war this century because China and Russia are not likely to democratize.
Maybe I didn’t explain myself well regarding the interconnectedness, I don’t mean bilateral trade (which is what you mention in your linked article) but just the fact that the world we live in is much more brittle in the sense that a black swan event such as a rogue state attacking the internet may have potentially extinction-scale consequences. In other words, before say WWII any war simply couldn’t spread to the level of threatening world extinction as there weren’t enough nuclear weapons or there were enough third parties either too far away for the conflict or otherwise uninterested to commit their populations to the death. Whereas now, with cyberwarfare, biological warfare and nuclear, it is envisageable that at least one of the Great Powers will regard the whole of the Earth as the War theatre. I hope this explains my idea a bit better.
As democratization, again, I guess as callous as it sounds, the situations currently in Iran and Russia may prove to be good case studies.
Hi Haris, thanks for this. I agree that it’s useful to tackle such complicated questions from a variety of approaches.
I’ve written a little bit about interconnectedness and democratization here. I agree they exert some influence on the likelihood of conflict. I do think that the pacifying effects of interconnectedness are somewhat overrated. The economic costs of going to war against any given trade partner are usually small relative to a country’s total GDP and the potential gains, material and symbolic, from fighting.
And while I find the evidence for a democratic peace surprisingly strong, it has limited bearing on the possibility of a major war this century because China and Russia are not likely to democratize.
Dear Stephen,
Maybe I didn’t explain myself well regarding the interconnectedness, I don’t mean bilateral trade (which is what you mention in your linked article) but just the fact that the world we live in is much more brittle in the sense that a black swan event such as a rogue state attacking the internet may have potentially extinction-scale consequences. In other words, before say WWII any war simply couldn’t spread to the level of threatening world extinction as there weren’t enough nuclear weapons or there were enough third parties either too far away for the conflict or otherwise uninterested to commit their populations to the death. Whereas now, with cyberwarfare, biological warfare and nuclear, it is envisageable that at least one of the Great Powers will regard the whole of the Earth as the War theatre. I hope this explains my idea a bit better.
As democratization, again, I guess as callous as it sounds, the situations currently in Iran and Russia may prove to be good case studies.
Best Wishes,
Haris