“Might makes right” seems more like an observation of a particular instance in the feedback loop of building power.
America is for example in a pretty strong position, but maintains power by doing diplomatic stuff. Being in some sense the leader of a big coalition of friendly countries (imagine if we had to force EU countries to accept our bases by violence, it is way cheaper to just be on friendly terms with them and pay a little rent). Being the world’s reserve currency. Setting up and having outsized influence in international organizations.
That sort of stuff requires give-and-take diplomacy, cooperation, and setting up a system of international norms and laws that everyone at least pretends to respect.
Might might make right, but a complex system of rules, conventions, laws, negotiations, reputations and even person-to-person relationships made quite some might. It’s sorta chicken and egg.
> Might might make right, but a complex system of rules, conventions, laws, negotiations, reputations and even person-to-person relationships made quite some might. It’s sorta chicken and egg.
All of those systems are a response to “might makes right” and the history of violence with the ultimate conclusion in the trenches of WWI and WWII. Wars to decide whose might is rightest became so destructive in the modern era that we created all these complex systems of geopolitics - because few of us can stomach destroying a century of industrial progress to prove our might anymore.
“Might make right” still dominates the interactions between unequal states.
It's called hegemony. Hegemony is just another form of dominance, as ultimately it's backed up by force of arms. Power flowing from the barrel of a gun and all that.
The sort of economy required to build a top-tier military nowadays requires international trade and cooperation.
If this sort of military force can’t be produced without a bunch of willing allies, then the force is just an intermediary step. It is constrained by the need to keep those allies willing.
I’m not saying the world is all butterflies and roses, just pointing out that that constraint is real, and I think it is not really what people think of when they say “might.”
Timescales matter. US may not be able to sustain a top-tier military on its own long-term, but short term, they do have the top-tier military and their "allies" don't, so international diplomacy remains the art of skate-dancing around explicitly talking about where the US aircraft carriers are parked now. And that's skating constrained to boundaries defined by MAD, let's not forget that.
America is for example in a pretty strong position, but maintains power by doing diplomatic stuff. Being in some sense the leader of a big coalition of friendly countries (imagine if we had to force EU countries to accept our bases by violence, it is way cheaper to just be on friendly terms with them and pay a little rent). Being the world’s reserve currency. Setting up and having outsized influence in international organizations.
That sort of stuff requires give-and-take diplomacy, cooperation, and setting up a system of international norms and laws that everyone at least pretends to respect.
Might might make right, but a complex system of rules, conventions, laws, negotiations, reputations and even person-to-person relationships made quite some might. It’s sorta chicken and egg.