The answer to this is related to the answer of: "would you prefer to be in the lower class of Norwegian society or the lower class of nearby Belarussian society?"
At this risk of being pedantic: the question isn't how we maintain the well-being of other humans, it is how we maintain the well-being of our humans[0] and frankly there's a lot to be said for boot-to-neck diplomacy.
> At this risk of being pedantic: the question isn't how we maintain the well-being of other humans, it is how we maintain the well-being of our humans[0] and frankly there's a lot to be said for boot-to-neck diplomacy.
That attitude with the associated American power was a complete catastrophe for:
A catastrophe for America (Americans) or for the countries listed and their people? Only one of those is relevant.[0]
My greater point here is that global politics is an inherently amoral game. By extension a morality-based strategy is inherently sub-optimal.
[0]addendum: To be clear there are definitely arguments to be made that some or all of them weren't good for Americans (e.g. loss of global goodwill may have resulted in less favorable trade agreements).
> War is not an extension of "diplomacy by other means".
FWIW: War is defined by Clausewitz as the continuation of politics by other means, not of diplomacy. (It's probably the most famous theory of warfare, by the preeminent theorist.)
Clausewitz wasn't normalizing war, but explaining it: it's politics using violent means. If you don't understand the fundemental political nature of warfare then you will make major mistakes and many more will die and suffer. Those mistakes still happen: You can see that the US in Afghanistan lacked a clear vision and strategy for a political outcome. In those countries you see the results of defeating an enemy militarily and not politically. Russia, even if they 'win' militarily, will have a very big political problem in Ukraine.
The idea that war is a crime at the international scale is underpinned by the threat of war, just as the idea that murder is a crime at the personal scale is underpinned by the threat of murder. We fully intentionally put a lot of steps in between because it turns out that dying sucks a lot,[citation needed] but the fact that they stand between radical disruption of quality, er, quantity of life is what gives those steps weight.
That is to say, war is not other means. It is the primal means of diplomacy from which all others spring forth.
> That is to say, war is not other means. It is the primal means of diplomacy from which all others spring forth.
I'm not sure I understand what you're arguing here. Let me spell out my alternative interpretations and tell me which (if any) is what you meant:
a- War is the primary principle or tool of diplomacy. It is by the threat of war that diplomacy without violence can work.
b- Like a-, but with the implication this is the right way, and there's no other non-violent means for humans to resolve their disagreements and organize themselves at the world level. It will always be "my way, or a club to the head".
c- Like a-, but with the implication this is a historical artifact and reflects a sad state of affairs, and that true diplomacy will find a way to work without resorting to the threat of violence. Or at least, that this is a goal worth striving for, even if humans are imperfect.
The distinction matters, because a- and b- make it easy to jump to the conclusion "in this case" violence is warranted ("I hate war, but this is a just war!") and that "boot to neck" diplomacy is sometimes needed and unavoidable. Whereas option c- will always consider resorting to violence a kind of failure and not something to celebrate or chest-thump about.
> war is not other means. It is the primal means of diplomacy from which all others spring forth.
Clausewitz, the leading scholar of war in modern history, called it 'the continuation of politics by other means', so it's not so easily discredited.
> the idea that murder is a crime at the personal scale is underpinned by the threat of murder
It may be partly underpinned by that threat, but my choice not to murder is not because of some threat, but because I very strongly don't want to murder people. That is the case for almost all humans, except the sociopaths. I don't follow HN's guidelines because I'm afraid of being banned, but because I want to treat people well and have a high-functioning community. People want to live peacefully, safely, see others prosper, etc.; conflict happens because we feel threatened.
The idea that people are fundamentally sociopaths seems like a popular assumption, and like many logical extremes, I think that is because of its logical clarity. It's a simple, easy theory to work from. But that's not how humans are.
In the international arena, most relationships are not underpinned by threat of violence. For example, the relationships between most European countries are not that way - that's one reason Russia's attack is so shocking. France and Germany are not fundamentally deterred from fighting because of the threat of violence - why the heck would they shoot each other? They want to trade, see each other prosper and live freely, and make money. Though certainly, lacking an effective international government, it is more anarchic and violent than life in democracies.
Given how easily corruption rots things.... I'd say definitively yes.
I remember, I took part in a modeling competition trying to create a sustainability index for countries. During my analysis phase I realized that almost everything measurably bad you can think of correlated astoundingly well with the corruption index for that country. Even what seemed like very distant externalities.
