Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Selatius

(20,441 posts)
31. There were no huge wars because both sides had nuclear weapons, not necessarily due to trade.
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 03:15 AM
Feb 2012

The presence of nuclear weapons made the costs of major wars between global powers so high as to make it pointless to intentionally start one without the extremely high risk of annihilation.

There were, on the other hand, plenty of bloody conflicts on a smaller scale throughout Latin America, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. Several of those conflicts became proxy wars between the two superpowers, such as in Angola and Viet Nam. Other conflicts were very likely the result of a major superpower disapproving of the government a people elected, such as the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected government in 1953 for nationalizing its oil fields or Chile's 9/11/1973 coup that toppled its democratically elected government in favor of the pro-American dictator Augusto Pinochet, a champion of total law-of-the-jungle capitalism and total privatization of social services.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I like the idea for discussion-- and I generally disagree with your premise... mike_c Feb 2012 #1
I will be happy to exchange ideas whenever you are back NT BrentWil Feb 2012 #2
Peace at the barrel of a gun...... marmar Feb 2012 #3
I would agree to somewhat.. BrentWil Feb 2012 #4
Two states that are "capitalist" are less likely to fight... like Germany and the UK in 1914? LooseWilly Feb 2012 #30
"Auferre trucidare rapere falsis nominis imperium, atque ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant" alcibiades_mystery Feb 2012 #5
We have made some huge foreign policy mistakes... but what have we turned into a desert? BrentWil Feb 2012 #6
Living standards in Iraq are worse than before the war Lydia Leftcoast Feb 2012 #7
Huge steps forward in some ways, yes. white_wolf Feb 2012 #11
Capitalism makes a desert alcibiades_mystery Feb 2012 #15
Lemme see, according to Congressman Filner nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #27
Don't forget the depleted uranium munitions we dropped all over Serbia during the Kosovo War. nt Selatius Feb 2012 #32
Two World Wars disagree with your premise. white_wolf Feb 2012 #8
I think the author wouldn't argue that it makes more impossible, just less likely NT BrentWil Feb 2012 #12
LOL. Capitalism = Endless War. Odin2005 Feb 2012 #9
ignoring WWI, WWII, etc. just discard all the inconvenient conflicts. Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #10
The general argument is that war is less likely, not impossible NT BrentWil Feb 2012 #13
Less likely than what? Than feudalism? alcibiades_mystery Feb 2012 #16
Well, it looks at the years between 1950-92. BrentWil Feb 2012 #19
The capitalist powers were less likely to go to war, because they were united against a common foe white_wolf Feb 2012 #20
But does it fall apart after 92? I mean, off hand, I can't think of many examples of two countries BrentWil Feb 2012 #22
Given your timeframe, it's just as legitimate alcibiades_mystery Feb 2012 #21
There were no huge wars because both sides had nuclear weapons, not necessarily due to trade. Selatius Feb 2012 #31
There were plenty of wars between '50-'92... but the "variables" indicate previous surrender... LooseWilly Feb 2012 #33
This is what he uses and the rational BrentWil Feb 2012 #54
cherry pick much? Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #34
He just uses the data set that most political scientist use: BrentWil Feb 2012 #56
the general argument was made 20 years ago and was self-serving stupid then Warren Stupidity Feb 2012 #18
History says otherwise MadHound Feb 2012 #14
When the machines for war are a commodity in a capitalist society, DJ13 Feb 2012 #17
Mmmmmm.......how's that been workin' for ya so far? kestrel91316 Feb 2012 #23
obvious that gov must be an adversary of criminal capitalism tiny elvis Feb 2012 #24
imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. provis99 Feb 2012 #25
I do not agree. PowerToThePeople Feb 2012 #26
Of course there is another problem with this argument nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #28
Correlation is not causation. JDPriestly Feb 2012 #29
If capitalism is libtodeath Feb 2012 #35
I think you are dead wrong. GeorgeGist Feb 2012 #36
.. mdmc Feb 2012 #37
If this assertion is true, then clearly the world is not now tledford Feb 2012 #38
Actually conflict is generally trending downwards... NT BrentWil Feb 2012 #40
Totally! If it weren't for capitalism raouldukelives Feb 2012 #39
Huh? mmonk Feb 2012 #41
Of course you have to willfully ignore the overwhelming abundance of evidence to the contrary. Edweird Feb 2012 #42
lol... yeah, convincing fascisthunter Feb 2012 #43
Now let's try some facts: TBF Feb 2012 #44
The argument is that two states with an open market are less likely to fight a war... BrentWil Feb 2012 #45
We have been at war through our entire existence, which means the study is whack. nt TBF Feb 2012 #48
"open markets" often being a tidy neoliberal euphemism.. girl gone mad Feb 2012 #49
I think it just means generally free economic interactions between states. BrentWil Feb 2012 #53
The US ceased being Capitalist decades ago Creideiki Feb 2012 #46
How are we not capitalist? white_wolf Feb 2012 #47
Capitalists wage war on countries all the time lunatica Feb 2012 #50
I would disagree... BrentWil Feb 2012 #52
Trade, and open borders have always helped to lead to peace. RB TexLa Feb 2012 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author whatchamacallit Feb 2012 #55
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Capitalist Peace: Why...»Reply #31