Skip to main content

Causes of War (and of one in particular)

Without a lot of throat clearing, here are some thoughts.

1. In general, the causes of wars between nations states always involve competition for resources, and the breakdown of earlier means for mediating those conflicts non-violently. Look at it this way: A new war comes about at the end of a precious period of peace, or at least relative peace. Otherwise, it wouldn't be a new war at all, just a continuation of the everlasting one, right? Also, I think it safe to assume for simplicity's sake at least that resource conflicts are constant. Wants are infinite, resources are limited! So ... a war begins both because specific resource conflicts exist and because mediation mechanisms that until then had kept the peace have broken down.

2. In Europe, the First World War came about largely as a byproduct of the scramble for Africa. The major powers each wanted to gobble up large parts of Africa for their own use, for mining, for markets, for prestige, etc. This brought them into repeated crisis, although for a long time in the late 19th and early 20th centuries they were able to mediate those crises.

3. The two leading powers, Great Britain and Germany, were each through this period becoming increasingly confident. Their confidence was in part a consequence of the ties they had built up diplomatically and because of the great fleet of Dreadnoughts each was developing. Consider the phrase "dread nought" behind the name of the class of battleships involved. Their dread of nought meant that they were each less inclined to compromise over time. The process of mediation, which entailed mutual fear, was based on cultural memories of the horrors of the Napoleonic era, but that memory was fading and the fear was breaking down.

4. The final crisis, when it came, did NOT especially involve Africa as the precursor crises had. Still, the point is that the mediation possibilities available in those earlier crises had dried up. The system had become so fragile it could not survive a crisis created by the secessionist forces within the Austrian Empire.


  1. Christopher, I don't deny anything you write here, but, in focusing on competition for resources, I believe that you discount the irrational factors that lead to war. One such factor is the desire for power for its own sake. People go into politics because of their will to power, and, once they gain power, that will remains. I believe that anyone who seeks political office ought to automatically be disqualified for it; we could put that in the Constitution. (Have you ever thought of such a constitutional amendment as a way to bring about the anarchy you desire?)

  2. To some extent I made room for irrational factors when I mentioned above that "prestige" was part of the reason the Scramble for Africa was as intense as it was. A patch of desert or marshland that was of no real resource use might nonetheless look good on a map, with a certain country's flag planted there, from the point of view of the egos of that country's elite.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

England as a Raft?

In a lecture delivered in 1880, William James asked rhetorically, "Would England ... be the drifting raft she is now in European affairs if a Frederic the Great had inherited her throne instead of a Victoria, and if Messrs Bentham, Mill, Cobden, and Bright had all been born in Prussia?"

Beneath that, in a collection of such lectures later published under James' direction, was placed the footnote, "The reader will remember when this was written."

The suggestion of the bit about Bentham, Mill, etc. is that the utilitarians as a school helped render England ineffective as a European power, a drifting raft.

The footnote was added in 1897. So either James is suggesting that the baleful influence of Bentham, Mill etc wore off in the meantime or that he had over-estimated it.

Let's unpack this a bit.  What was happening in the period before 1880 that made England seem a drifting raft in European affairs, to a friendly though foreign observer (to the older brother…

Cancer Breakthrough

Hopeful news in recent days about an old and dear desideratum: a cure for cancer. Or at least for a cancer, and a nasty one at that.

The news comes about because investors in GlaxoSmithKline are greedy for profits, and has already inspired a bit of deregulation to boot. 

The FDA has paved the road for a speedy review of a new BCMA drug for multiple myeloma, essentially cancer of the bone marrow. This means that the US govt has removed some of the hurdles that would otherwise (by decision of the same govt) face a company trying to proceed with these trials expeditiously. 

This has been done because the Phase I clinical trial results have been very promising. The report I've seen indicates that details of these results will be shared with the world on Dec. 11 at the annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology. 

The European Medicines Agency has also given priority treatment to the drug in question. 

GSK's website identifies the drug at issue as "GSK2857916," althou…

Francesco Orsi

I thought briefly that I had found a contemporary philosopher whose views on ethics and meta-ethics checked all four key boxes. An ally all down the line.

The four, as regular readers of this blog may remember, are: cognitivism, intuitionism, consequentialism, pluralism. These represent the views that, respectively: some ethical judgments constitute knowledge; one important source for this knowledge consists of quasi-sensory non-inferential primary recognitions ("intuitions"); the right is logically dependent upon the good; and there exists an irreducible plurality of good.

Francesco Orsi seemed to believe all of these propositions. Here's his website and a link to one relevant paper:

What was better: Orsi is a young man. Born in 1980. A damned child! Has no memories of the age of disco!

So I emailed him asking if I was right that he believed all of those things. His answer: three out of …