tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post5767671830388333898..comments2023-04-03T18:40:42.735+09:00Comments on The Caffeinated Symposium: History Book -- THE CAUSES OF WAR, by Geoffrey BlaineyDave Cesaranohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01454928720043301400noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-33740205919343281852010-07-17T14:00:10.511+09:002010-07-17T14:00:10.511+09:00I may have mentioned it. I'd read it in high ...I may have mentioned it. I'd read it in high school, but I definitely needed to return to it as an adult.<br /><br />Blainey takes China into account, but he's not quite interested in the reasons/excuses for war, but rather the risk-reward calculations that nations make before they commit to fighting or to peace. So, in reality, I think the book is mistitled. It's not so much about what causes a war, although he does explore that a great deal. His primary drive is that risk-reward calculation, and Blainey argues that morals and ethics rarely go into those calculations. He's all about cold, hard <i>realpolitik</i>.Dave Cesaranohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01454928720043301400noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-474822155726017607.post-44525896640281136712010-07-17T01:35:08.390+09:002010-07-17T01:35:08.390+09:00I want to say we've discussed this book before...I want to say we've discussed this book before, but I'm not sure.<br /><br />Does Blainey actually ignore the reason that the Western powers were "bullying" the Empire, ie. the 4-year old war in China?<br /><br />It wasn't the sanctions, in and of themselves, that made Japan's economy require more resources; it was the weapons that needed them. Does Blainey miss the incursions Japan made in Indochina, a full 18 months before the Pearl Harbor attack? <br />Japan was the aggressor in the Pacific Rim. <br />Where the economic situation really comes to bear is in the late colonial maneuvering that Japan was trying to benefit from; at the end of the First World War, which Japan sat out, everybody carved up the former German possessions. The Empire did in fact get a few pieces. But nothing like what they wanted, nor recognized that the Europeans and America still had, especially in China. <br /><br />All things told, I'm not sure how much better Kennedy's Whiz Kids could have played Cuba. Everyone wants to second-guess them, because we've since learned that the missiles the Soviets had deployed were a good deal better than we'd concluded at the time. But what everyone is willing to forget, or perhaps simply does forget, is that in 1961 the "missile gap" was horribly in our favor, as was the unmentioned "warhead gap"; any strike by the Soviets, no matter how destructive of US cities, would have led to a response from the US that would have created a wasteland larger than the Sahara.<br />The Soviets knew this, and both sides were well aware that the USSR was in no place to match blows with the US nuclear arsenal. Europe may have been overrun by the Red Army (Given the performance of Soviet arms in Korea, that itself was not a given), but within hours, nearly every single Soviet city and military installation would have been on radioactive fire.<br /><br />I still need to grab a copy of this, yes. And I agree with him that war has not changed, even since Thucydides' day. Of course the first time I said this, I didn't cite enough sources and got a C on the mid-term... nice to see I did know what I was about.KWBoydhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12352495035208794269noreply@blogger.com