It’s how the world actually prioritizes its issues
May 2, 2025 12:39 AM Subscribe
When it was first created, in 1963, the Munich Security Conference brought together German military officials with their U.S. and NATO counterparts to discuss countering the USSR. Typically, a few dozen people attended. This year, some 450 CEOs, generals, and politicians participated in what is often called “Davos with guns.” Caitlin L. Chandler was among them, and wrote that although officials like U.S. Vice President J. D. Vance made the splashiest headlines, the most interesting discussions took place away from the main stage. [An article by and interview with Caitlin L. Chandler, in The Dial]
I wanted to understand how we could think about the future of the Geneva Conventions
davos (without guns) [harper’s archive]
posted by HearHere at 2:32 AM on May 2 [2 favorites]
davos (without guns) [harper’s archive]
posted by HearHere at 2:32 AM on May 2 [2 favorites]
This was really interesting. I'm in a field that's often (and increasingly, of late) defense-adjacent, and I have a relative who is a military history analyst working for the government. Much as I would love for military bullshit to be, if not over, then less, this is possibly the worst year since the 1960s to be holding that hope.
The US retreat from maintaining their so-called Pax Americana is good if you don't like occupying armies (I don't) and less good if you like international defense cooperation (I do) because the US isn't cutting their military spending at all and everyone else is increasing theirs.
Looking at the international situation, I'm having to come to terms with the very real possibility of the research I'm currently doing being used in applications that harm people, and figure out how I feel about that.
posted by ngaiotonga at 2:58 AM on May 2 [10 favorites]
The US retreat from maintaining their so-called Pax Americana is good if you don't like occupying armies (I don't) and less good if you like international defense cooperation (I do) because the US isn't cutting their military spending at all and everyone else is increasing theirs.
Looking at the international situation, I'm having to come to terms with the very real possibility of the research I'm currently doing being used in applications that harm people, and figure out how I feel about that.
posted by ngaiotonga at 2:58 AM on May 2 [10 favorites]
> how do we make war unprofitable? How do we make the makers of matériel feel it is too hazardous a career to pursue? Because we can't appeal to their morals, their humanity, and voting doesn't seem to produce moral results
war is already unprofitable for the states that wage war, and has been since the industrial revolution. prior to that it was quite profitable indeed to do offensive war, to go over to somewhere else and shoot bows or muskets or whatever at them until the feudal lords or merchant princes or whatever ruling over that somewhere else gave you all their stuff, since profit was generally extracted from the land and from non-capital-intensive productive methods.
these days the stuff that’s money-making is precisely the stuff that’s smashed to bits when you go and do a war, and so if purely “rational” self-interest at the level of nation-states ruled then offensive war would no longer be a thing. unfortunately, offensive war can be quite profitable indeed for factions inside nation-states. the people who really profit from war, profit in terms of real power rather than the polite abstraction that we call money, are people who know that having a lovely war going on is a means for a ruling faction to solidify power, perhaps the most effective means available.
the problem for these people is that using this method long-term requires a baseline level of competence, lest they wind up like louis napoleon — probably the most direct historical analogue to donald trump — who thought he was going to drive up his approval rating by sending france into a lovely little war with prussia but who ended up getting extremely captured immediately when france’s armies got extremely crushed immediately. the humiliating treaty signed by france in the aftermath led a generation or two later to germany getting subjected to a directly analogous humiliating treaty which then led directly to a century of worldwide shit.
unfortunately for us, we do not live in the sweetly simple times of second empire france, and despite the blundering napoleon iii-esque stupidity of our misrulers the nation can do an truly incredible amount of stupid wasteful omnidirectional violence with its vastly more effective military apparatus without facing collapse.
i’m stating this from an america-centric perspective, but i’d argue that putin’s inept, blundering military adventurism falls under the same rubric.
so, yeah. probably the closest thing available to a solution to modern military stupidity was the old bolshevik attempt to get the world’s armies to all turn their guns around to point at their real enemies — the generals on their own sides — but that dream died when the german armies failed to follow suit and when the wave of late-1910s revolutions crashed and rolled back, and the historical moment for it never returned.
anyway. we’re fucked.
posted by Sperry Topsider at 5:26 AM on May 2 [10 favorites]
war is already unprofitable for the states that wage war, and has been since the industrial revolution. prior to that it was quite profitable indeed to do offensive war, to go over to somewhere else and shoot bows or muskets or whatever at them until the feudal lords or merchant princes or whatever ruling over that somewhere else gave you all their stuff, since profit was generally extracted from the land and from non-capital-intensive productive methods.
these days the stuff that’s money-making is precisely the stuff that’s smashed to bits when you go and do a war, and so if purely “rational” self-interest at the level of nation-states ruled then offensive war would no longer be a thing. unfortunately, offensive war can be quite profitable indeed for factions inside nation-states. the people who really profit from war, profit in terms of real power rather than the polite abstraction that we call money, are people who know that having a lovely war going on is a means for a ruling faction to solidify power, perhaps the most effective means available.
the problem for these people is that using this method long-term requires a baseline level of competence, lest they wind up like louis napoleon — probably the most direct historical analogue to donald trump — who thought he was going to drive up his approval rating by sending france into a lovely little war with prussia but who ended up getting extremely captured immediately when france’s armies got extremely crushed immediately. the humiliating treaty signed by france in the aftermath led a generation or two later to germany getting subjected to a directly analogous humiliating treaty which then led directly to a century of worldwide shit.
unfortunately for us, we do not live in the sweetly simple times of second empire france, and despite the blundering napoleon iii-esque stupidity of our misrulers the nation can do an truly incredible amount of stupid wasteful omnidirectional violence with its vastly more effective military apparatus without facing collapse.
i’m stating this from an america-centric perspective, but i’d argue that putin’s inept, blundering military adventurism falls under the same rubric.
so, yeah. probably the closest thing available to a solution to modern military stupidity was the old bolshevik attempt to get the world’s armies to all turn their guns around to point at their real enemies — the generals on their own sides — but that dream died when the german armies failed to follow suit and when the wave of late-1910s revolutions crashed and rolled back, and the historical moment for it never returned.
anyway. we’re fucked.
posted by Sperry Topsider at 5:26 AM on May 2 [10 favorites]
Sperry Topsider beat me to it: it's not that war is profitable anymore, but more like institutions still have not caught up with the reality.
Because once upon a time, war paid like nothing else. Before industrialization, there was literally nothing you could do with your time that had an ROI even close to getting together with some friends and going out to murder some dudes and steal their stuff. If you could find some suckers who worked at production instead of stealing, and you could pull off the heist.
The world has changed, as was pointed out over 100 years ago now. But institutions can take many lifetimes to respond to changes like that, and the world is still populated with political units that originated as superior predators.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:14 AM on May 2 [2 favorites]
Because once upon a time, war paid like nothing else. Before industrialization, there was literally nothing you could do with your time that had an ROI even close to getting together with some friends and going out to murder some dudes and steal their stuff. If you could find some suckers who worked at production instead of stealing, and you could pull off the heist.
The world has changed, as was pointed out over 100 years ago now. But institutions can take many lifetimes to respond to changes like that, and the world is still populated with political units that originated as superior predators.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 9:14 AM on May 2 [2 favorites]
Are the profits of war in product development including AI the reason why its going to take longer for peace in Ukraine, as announced today by Vance right after signing the rare earth mineral deal?
posted by infini at 9:59 AM on May 2 [1 favorite]
posted by infini at 9:59 AM on May 2 [1 favorite]
War is not profitable for *countries* anymore. War can still be quite profitable for the individuals running those countries, though -- to say nothing of its ability to distract and galvanize populations.
Because once upon a time, war paid like nothing else.
Not to mention that you needed to invest in defense anyway to avoid getting taken over by your neighbors so to put it in modern terms, war in premodern times turned a cost center into a profit center.
posted by Slothrup at 10:27 AM on May 2 [2 favorites]
Because once upon a time, war paid like nothing else.
Not to mention that you needed to invest in defense anyway to avoid getting taken over by your neighbors so to put it in modern terms, war in premodern times turned a cost center into a profit center.
posted by Slothrup at 10:27 AM on May 2 [2 favorites]
re: protection from neighbors, one thing that i didn't expect to feel when i visited finland a little while back is, well, so, normally when i see people in these united states of america wearing military uniforms i'm like "uhhghgghghghgh," but when i saw soldiers in helsinki in their soldier gear — and also estonia when i day tripped over there, times a thousand in estonia — my immediate thought was "thank you for your service!11!!! i feel better for knowing you're here!1!1!!!"
posted by Sperry Topsider at 11:05 AM on May 2 [2 favorites]
posted by Sperry Topsider at 11:05 AM on May 2 [2 favorites]
> War is not profitable for *countries* anymore. War can still be quite profitable for the individuals running those countries, though
Like I said, you should it expect it to take multiple human lifetimes for institutions to adapt to the reality.
I was not merely trying to make an impressive-sounding noise. It took centuries of States demanding monopoly control of lethal violence, before dueling ceased to be a way of settling disputes. For example.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 1:43 PM on May 2
Like I said, you should it expect it to take multiple human lifetimes for institutions to adapt to the reality.
I was not merely trying to make an impressive-sounding noise. It took centuries of States demanding monopoly control of lethal violence, before dueling ceased to be a way of settling disputes. For example.
posted by Aardvark Cheeselog at 1:43 PM on May 2
« Older hello and is nice to meest you | Flatpack Curta Newer »
How do we make war unprofitable? How do we make the makers of matériel feel it is too hazardous a career to persue? Because we can't appeal to their morals, their humanity, and voting doesn't seem to produde moral results
posted by unearthed at 1:26 AM on May 2 [9 favorites]