Recently I stumbled across this article which surprised me as I had thought that the prevailing opinion (a reduction in wars) was correct.
http://www.world-science.net/othernews/110630_war.htm
"Military conflicts between states have been increasing in frequency from 1870 to 2001—even without counting the best-known conflagrations such as the world wars and American interventions, a study has found.
The survey of conflict counted everything from all-out shooting wars and uses of military force to displays of force such as sending warships and closing borders. This doesn’t measure the intensity of violence, researchers said, but does capture governments’ readiness to settle disputes by force. Only conflicts between states, not civil wars, were counted.
Identifiable factors behind the increase—two percent more wars each year, on average—are that there are more borders and weapons are cheaper, according to the investigators. By their count, the total number of nations rose from 47 in 1870 to 187 on the eve of the World Trade Center attacks."
I think the primary cause was the dismantling of Empires and the establishment of Africa states which now fight due to the poor idea of arbitrarily dividing up states. This is an interesting question. In Marxist thought it is believed that the number of wars would increase due to competition between nation states on behalf of their respective captialist elements. Neoliberalism and other such theories argue that peace is more likely as countries benefit from trade. The second theory lead to the McDonald's Theory of War which is the statement that no two countries with McDonald's have ever gone to war with each other. This was violated in 2008 when Russia waltzed into Georgia or the 2006 war Israel waged on Lebanon.
Either way it seems to easy to tell given the explosion in the number of countries. Also, many would argue that there will be peace during times of plenty and growth but that as soon as things begin to turn sour (as in the present day) then warmongers once again find a voice.
>I think the primary cause was the dismantling of Empires and the establishment of Africa states which now fight due to the poor idea of arbitrarily dividing up states.
ReplyDeleteThis answer is only half right. In reality, the Old World empires were only replaced by the New World empire, which is so terrible at managing its colonies that they no longer turn a profit, and have to be shipped massive amounts in aid instead. Funny how that works, these new "independent" countries are more economically dependent on their masters than ever.
The difference between Cecil Rhodes and Barack Obama isn't that the latter isn't an imperialist; it's that he's a bad one.