The Long Peace: 1945 - Present
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Both parties already had just as destructive forces even without the bomb. The bomb also doesn't explain why many democratic nations who don't posses it avoided quarrels as well.
One example is Spain and Canada who avoided significant conflict over their dispute over flatfish.
Last edited:
Mr. Leaf.
Usually when there is a remark about some pimple, action, incident and such on British history (as mentioned by Old Medic), BL is sure to correct anything needing correcting. ;-)
Honor's not fictitious, it's synthetic. lol But, you're right; people do tend to massively misunderstand it, mistake it for other stuff, and mislead with it.
Yeah, he does seem to be AWOL. Shoot him a email and check on him maybe?
Yep. The only one that beats those two for bloodiness is the Islamic/Christian war. (Kinda says something about aggressive religions, huh?)
This whole thread seems to have the purpose of bolstering a western civilization that isn't. The argument is that the democratic west has been disinclined to violence, which is so patently false because they are welded together in a monolithic corporate financial marriage which declines to eat it's own body parts when lesser nonalighned entities exists to feed it.
Like Victoria's 'little wars'.. they are those fought on the edges of empire. Vietnam, the guerilla wars of Latin America, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Gulf and more.. Never requiring full mobilization they have been a constant meat grinder for the U.S. and its coalitions.
Yer a thousand years and several hundred millions of bodies out of sync with reality Mr Gibson.
Wasn't that after the RCN fired a shot across a bow and told them to get out of the 200 mi. limit ?? Seem to remember something about that, but stand to be corrected as usual. far far to busy to Google it . lol.
I recall a certain instance where a trawler was only too eager to get underway (with red smoke still puffing on her foredeck) upon a low approach with bomb bay opened
Here is more of the overarching theory behind our general decline in violence. Feel free to call bs, but also give counter examples or point out the logical flaws in this rationale.
“Reductions in violence got their start when governments became large and powerful enough to curb violence among their citizens. The threat of violence from without turned people away from violence, and the habit of behaving peacefully soon became second nature, thus leading to still less violence. However, this still left the very significant problems of the violence that governments committed against their own citizens, and also other states. Later, reason was used to question this state of affairs, and suggested that this deplorable situation could be improved by way of reforms such as democratic governments, more trade between countries, and efforts to form an international community. The same philosophy that led to these arguments simultaneously maintained that all people are created equal, and that all people should have the right to pursue their own happiness as long as they do not infringe on other peoples’ right to do the same. This philosophy led to reductions in violence against those of other races, religions and ethnicities, and also led to less violence against women children and animals. The rational argument in favour of the fundamental equality of all people was helped along by the fact that people were increasingly being “exposed to new peoples and cultures, which allowed them to see first–hand that all people really are fundamentally the same, and which opened up their empathy towards them.”
Excerpt From: A. D. Thibeault. “An Executive Summary of Steven Pinker's 'The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined'.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=834277620
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewBook?id=834277620
Northern states could not be bothered with this duel stuff... they simply killed. Ain't nobody got time for duels.
Just see NYs Dan Sickels. NY politician simply shot his wife's lover when he found out. Then became a Union Civil War General!
Occasionally.... Maritime Command did Fisheries, ice, search and rescue, drug traffic, environmental and a few other patrol duties more often than it was looking for submarines
Me Gilbert, Gibson over there.
Anyway, not everyone on the planet is stuck in the religion Monetary.
Like I said, there's a difference between actual decrease in violence and a decrease in the rate of it.
According to this bunch:
CSP Global Conflict Trends
up until around 1990, armed conflicts increased rather steeply and then declined, but not quite as steeply. So only in the past 2 decades has it declined.
I consider the decrease in rate as a decrease in violence.
I already know you consider the the total number to reflect the level of violence.
If the population remained constant, then I would consider total instances as relevant.
Many religious massacres took place in centuries in which the world’s population was far smaller. Crusaders, for example, killed 1 million people in world of 400 million, for a genocide rate that exceeds that of the Nazi Holocaust.
Sorry Les that Gibson guy I knew has been dead for years.
The love of money is still the root of a lot of evil.
Global arms sales figures do not support a reduction of violence?
I know. But it is misleading.
Um, specifically I think the total number to reflect on whether there is actually more or less violence in total rather than relate it to population size.
Yeah, you're right, the number of violent incidents is irrelevant.
If you have 4 people in a room and there are 3 violent incidents one day and the next day you add 4 more people and have 4 incidents involving violence, your incidents of violence have obviously dropped.
