Would the fact that more countries are democratic - the biggest military
powers (except China) are democratic anyway have got something to do with
the absence of recolonisation, despite military gap, as democracies
ostensibly do not go to war with each other. Nevertheless, most
decolonisation occurred in the 1960s. Four decades is too short a time to
assume that it would not happen again.
Bart JP
fabio guillermo
rojas To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] cc:
HICAGO.EDU> Subject: Re: the sea-change of
military competition
Sent by: ArmChair
List
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.GMU.EDU>
23/04/2004 11:16
PM
Please respond to
fabio guillermo
rojas
Two comments:
1. The gap between strong and weak is amplified by advances in air
power. It's a truism in military strategy that he who strikes from far
away wins the day. You'll notice that since ancient times, world powers
have been able to strike from afar with archery, artillery, bombers,
rockets and missles. That's a real part of the reason that the kill ratio
is so insanely low.
2. The second question: why aren't weaker powers being recolonized? This
is more complex. Here are some thoughts.
- first, some countries *have* been conquered by neighbors. Here
are some recent examples: USSR and central asia, China and Tibet,
Iraq and Kuwait (temporarily), Israel and the West Bank/Gaza,
Maybe Indonesia and Timor might be another example. It still
happens!!
- second: Larger, well populated nations are more difficult to
conquer than smaller countries- even if they have weak
militaries. I think there is a political science literature
that argues that nations tend to absorb weaker nations and then
reach an optimal size. It suggests that after a certain size, your
country is simply too large to swallow. You could argue
we've reached a point where all the "easy pickings" have occured.
- third: ideology - I think surveys like the World Values Survey
has shown that people care more about functioning welfare states
than in have empires. The average European seems to
care more about his unemployment check than if his nation has
a bunch of colonies. It could also be low fertility - if you have
only one or two children, you wouldn't want them fighting in
far off colonial war - even if it relatively safe.
- fourth: the emergence of credible mutual defense organization.
Notice that every single conquest example I gave above occured
outside of the most important mutual deferense groups: NATO,
the Warsaw pact and the East Asian alliance (Japan, South Korea,
US, Phillipines, Indonesia). Between a few large nations (India
and China) and these alliances, there isn't that much left. It
really does lock in a huge number of political boundaries.
Fabio
On Thu, 22 Apr 2004, Bryan Caplan wrote:
> It is a cliche that at least in the area of military technology,
> countries rarely let themselves fall behind. At least historically,
> countries either strived for parity or got conquered.
>
> But a weird thing has happened since WWII. The military ability gap
> between the strongest countries and the weakest has gotten a lot bigger.
> The British Empire in its heydey did not beat whole countries into
> submission with 0 casualties, but that is basically what NATO did to
> Yugoslavia. Colonial kill ratios were something like 20:1, not 3000:0.
>
> But despite this widening gap, the idea that the weakest countries are
> going to be recolonized is now laughable. What in the world is going
> on? Are we in a weird fluke? Are there any parallels?
> --
> Prof. Bryan Caplan
> Department of Economics George Mason University
> http://www.bcaplan.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "I hope this has taught you kids a lesson: kids never learn."
>
> --Chief Wiggum, *The Simpsons*
>
