The underlying assumption -- that social connections will act as a barrier to war -- seems pretty flawed. Extensive connections didn't prevent any of the European wars between, say, 1700 and 1945. A country is more likely to have an internal war than one with any given outside nation.
Maybe, as an American, Scott associates wars with far-off, little-known lands. True in recent times for the US maybe, but certainly not for most conflicts.
You make a good point, the main reason the EU started was to prevent wars and it has worked. Since the formation of the EU, there has been no wars between its member nations, and that's saying a lot when sneezing in a foreign country was about all the justification needed.
Merely connecting people won't act as a barrier to war, but I think forming a universal governing structure would; however unlikely it is to actually happen. There's a saying that states democracy is just a farce to control the masses by giving the illusion of control, well I would say the EU does the exact same thing.
I can't speak for EU politics of late, I've rarely been in the UK the past year, however last I was keeping track the UK had a major problem with French farming subsidies (basically French farmers were being paid to be uncompetative) and the French wanted the UK to stop getting discounted for payments to the EU (each country pays like a tax that's supposed to benefit the whole, however the UK was paying less than it was getting in even though we're the richest country in the EU).
So, personally, I would say no level of communication will prevent war unless you're economically and socially tied as in the EU. I mean Kings would marry their daughters to Kings of other countries in an attempt to prevent war, the British bloodline has French descent in it. Even look at Richard the Lionheart, he barely even spoke english! Yet no amount of ties between England and France ever stopped war until the EU. Simple fact.
Actually I think the European thing is just an example of a broader phenomenon: democracies never go to war with other democracies.
(I went googling to make sure that was true, and found this: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm which goes through all the potential counterexamples. So I'll amend my statement to say that democracies hardly ever go to war with other democracies.)
So the idea is really a bit redundant -- two countries probably won't go to war if the people have anything to say about it anyway. Only when you have decisions being made by a dictator on at least one side are disagreements likely to turn into wars; democracies tend to compromise.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/163 "We live in violent times, an era of heightened warfare, genocide and senseless crime. Or so we've come to believe. Pinker charts a history of violence from Biblical times through the present, and says modern society has a little less to feel guilty about.".. i'd bet better communication between peoples does reduce violence.
I love Scott, but this shows a fundamental lack of understanding for why wars happen. The American Civil War comes to mind as the first counterexample. There are dozens more.
Nations don't resort to armed conflict because the citizens don't know each other that well. In fact, the counterexamples are very interesting -- I'm thinking of German presence in Great Britain before WWII. People demonize citizens of other nations after war is started, but that's more of a moral crutch than anything else. I think Scott confuses correlation with causality.
I think that you have to distinguish between wars in which the outcome is uncertain—that is, wars in which real risk to both sides is present—and wars that are essentially a big guy beating up a little guy.
I agree that the former kind of war would happen with the same frequency if this pen pal idea were implemented—the motivation for such wars need to be large enough to overcome the personal danger that they produce, and so would easily overshadow semipersonal connections with citizens of the opposite side. I think that the latter would very much be deterred, though, because the motivation for such wars can be miniscule, to the point where even the humanization of the "enemy" could be a significant deterrent.
I must admit finding it hard to make the distinction you suggest.
Would the American Civil War be a big guy beating up on a little guy? After all, the North was ten times as populous, and many, many times as rich. Nobody on either side thought the war would last very long.
How about the Romans and the Germanic tribes? Nobody in their right mind thought those Barbarians could stand up against the full might of the Roman Empire very long.
Wars are fought until one side decides to stop fighting. This means that "big guy/little guy" wars and "outcome is uncertain" wars don't seem to be that different. In fact the determining factor would seem to be how easy it is for one side to quit. But how would you know how much it would take to make the other side stop fighting until it actually happens? From the history I've seen, when both sides are very intimate with each other's language and culture -- that's when some of the deadliest, nastiest conflicts take place.
That's true. But it's becoming less true. Consider how long the anti-vietnam-war movement took to get started. Now consider that Iran is one of the first countries where there is popular preemptive dissent against conflict in the USA. Things may be bad, but one some dimensions, they're getting better.
I have a new proposal. Let's force all families to write letters to each other occasionally and even phone each other. This should stop domestic violence, no?
Maybe, as an American, Scott associates wars with far-off, little-known lands. True in recent times for the US maybe, but certainly not for most conflicts.