What if - US army confronted the Indian force on 1971 ?

[zraver]

Z's condition of more than 1000 casualties seems arbitrary. Why does it have to be a 1000+ ?

Because that is the international standard for classifying armed conflict as a war.

War is defined as an armed challenge to a nation state that has at least 1000 battle deaths.

[Shek]

Z's condition of more than 1000 casualties seems arbitrary. Why does it have to be a 1000+ ?

The Correlates of War is probably the most well known database that codes data about wars - they define 1000 battle deaths as the floor to be part of their database.

http://www.correlatesofwar.org/COW2%...20of%20war.pdf

[Shek]

That paper is deeply flawed, first off it states that public opinion and economic factors to be legit deterrents to war in the DPT must hold for all wars or risk of war situations be democracies ignoring the theories own claims that competing political systems change the dynamic of how public perception works. Without showing that in fact public perception and economic considerations do not change as regards conflicts with democratic vs non-democratic political system the rest of the paper is confounded.

Your wording is very confusing here, so I really can't follow exactly what you're saying, although I think you've placed things backwards in your logic chain and it's throwing you off. DPT holds that public opinion will prevent a democracy from going to war with another democracy. The people do not wish for war, as it is their own blood and treasure to be used as payment. Yet, in the Trent affair, the people wanted war, and they wanted it against the UK. Rather than public opinion holding back and urging caution, it was urging action, and action now.

Second, your second statement that I quoted indicates that you see DPT as DOA.

In the papers first example despite the papers ow clear assertion that war between the US and UK would lead to a political defeat for Lincoln (dissolution of the Union leading to non-reelection) the paper claims it was a realist approach that averted the crisis.

How is it clear since it doesn't even talk political defeat or re-election? It talks about a very realist lens of judging one's own power against another nation-state's power in the international system given the fact that the Union was already gauged in a civil war . . .

[zraver]

Your wording is very confusing here, so I really can't follow exactly what you're saying,

I am saying the paper confounds itself. If economic concerns will keep a democracy out of war, those concerns must be present in all wars even against non-democracies. Obviously they are not since democracies are slightly more warlike. Ditto for public pressure.

A second problem is the paper claims [at then] current public opinion is the public opinion that politicians look at which out considering if this is true or not or if the politicians are looking at expected future public opinion at the ballot box. It also either ignores or does not acknowledge the quiet voices of democracy that often hold sway- the industrialists, jurist and publicist who whisper to those in power and are often the loudest voices of all.

It makes these omissions of relevant factors again and again and as a result cannot disprove DPT becuase it does not honestly look at the processes that lead to a democracy going to war. It also assumes that the decsion for war is made in the instant rather than through deliberation this is important because the cry for war one day can be replaced by the hope for peace the next especially among those who have the biggest amounts of skin in the game

How is it clear since it doesn't even talk political defeat or re-election? It talks about a very realist lens of judging one's own power against another nation-state's power in the international system given the fact that the Union was already gauged in a civil war . . .

Because other primary source documents show the primacy of political considerations for Lincoln and his cabinet. The paper does not like to consider known factors outside of the very narrow criteria if wants to use to advance an agenda. Knowing Lincoln was a politician before he was a statesman the affect his actions would have on his continued politcal career MUST be considered. A war with the UK which the US could not win and which would split the union would end Lincoln's career.

[Deltacamelately]

Your wording is very confusing here, so I really can't follow exactly what you're saying, although I think you've placed things backwards in your logic chain and it's throwing you off. DPT holds that public opinion will prevent a democracy from going to war with another democracy. The people do not wish for war, as it is their own blood and treasure to be used as payment. Yet, in the Trent affair, the people wanted war, and they wanted it against the UK. Rather than public opinion holding back and urging caution, it was urging action, and action now.

Second, your second statement that I quoted indicates that you see DPT as DOA.



How is it clear since it doesn't even talk political defeat or re-election? It talks about a very realist lens of judging one's own power against another nation-state's power in the international system given the fact that the Union was already gauged in a civil war . . .

Shek,

I remember the Indian public going mad wanting war against Pakistan after both, the attack on the Parliament, as well as the Mumbai attack.

[Double Edge]

I remember the Indian public going mad wanting war against Pakistan after both, the attack on the Parliament, as well as the Mumbai attack.

Parliament attack in 2001 was when Musharraf was in charge so that is out.

Mumbai '08 however was when they had a civilian administration.

Now DPT says there have to be 1000 deaths and it needs to be a war. Not a terrorist attack.

Which is a point to raise here, what does DPT have to say about terrorism ?

An attack that managed to kill thousands could very well serve as a cassus belli to go to war. Like 9-11.

[Shek]

Z,

A quick synopsis I think will put the right questions back into focus, as the conversation has posed some questions that conflate what questions should be posed.

DPT can be traced back to Kant and his writing Perpetual Peace. Michael Doyle's articles on DPT is what's popularized the theory within IR circles (with some work prior). I posted Layne's rebuttal, which is one of the seminal rebuttal pieces. His approach is very fair, as any prediction that democracies do not fight one another without any other causal mechanism defined implicitly define democracy as then being the cause. Thus, Layne looks at the causal mechanism developed by Doyle to test whether the correlative results of no democracy on democracy war correspond to the proposed causal chain. In other words, he doesn't have provide another theory - he only has to falsify Doyle's causal chain to falsify the theory.

Also, when you talk about how Layne has to account for special interests, he doesn't, since DPT doesn't propose special interests as part of the causal chain. In fact, special interests provide another reason that DPT is a failure. Thus, you are arguing against yourself since you originally argued for DPT ;)

As for your discussion about current vs. future, I don't disagree that politicians take both into account. However, I'd love to see the primary source material that you are citing WRT the Trent Affair, as in all of my readings of the affair, I have yet to come across any primary source material where Lincoln cites the election that is 35 months away as being the reason for his decision. In fact, the sum of the evidence is that Lincoln would have much rather won the Civil War at the cost of re-election as opposed to win re-election without winning the Civil War. Thus, I find your argument a stretch at best that the decision hinged on the future election rather than the bigger question of winning the Civil War. In fact, the end response was originally designed by Seward, who didn't necessarily have much skin in the game for the election of 1864, as well as by Adams, who also didn't have skin in the game.

[zraver]

Z,

A quick synopsis I think will put the right questions back into focus, as the conversation has posed some questions that conflate what questions should be posed.

DPT can be traced back to Kant and his writing Perpetual Peace. Michael Doyle's articles on DPT is what's popularized the theory within IR circles (with some work prior). I posted Layne's rebuttal, which is one of the seminal rebuttal pieces. His approach is very fair, as any prediction that democracies do not fight one another without any other causal mechanism defined implicitly define democracy as then being the cause. Thus, Layne looks at the causal mechanism developed by Doyle to test whether the correlative results of no democracy on democracy war correspond to the proposed causal chain. In other words, he doesn't have provide another theory - he only has to falsify Doyle's causal chain to falsify the theory.

All that does it put into question why democracies don't fight. The Church had a theory that the Earth was the center of the universe, Copernicus said it was a Heliocentric universe. It turns out that Copernicus model was faulty even though his claim was right; he didn't account for an ecliptic orbit so his model was off.


We have observed that mature democracies do not fight- not a single instance of it.

Also, when you talk about how Layne has to account for special interests, he doesn't, since DPT doesn't propose special interests as part of the causal chain.

Actually DPT does... You can choose to see all voters as equal, but we know that some voters votes/voice are worth more than others. The poor man votes once at the ballot box, the rich man votes twice with his checkbook and the ballot box.

In fact, special interests provide another reason that DPT is a failure. Thus, you are arguing against yourself since you originally argued for DPT ;)

Special interests argue for DPT not against since they are collections and alliances of citizen voices.

As for your discussion about current vs. future, I don't disagree that politicians take both into account. However, I'd love to see the primary source material that you are citing WRT the Trent Affair, as in all of my readings of the affair, I have yet to come across any primary source material where Lincoln cites the election that is 35 months away as being the reason for his decision.

Rather than direct reference look to implied considerations. In this case look at the American reply to the British demands which won for the US a strategic victory (though never needed) about the rights of neutrals. This reply was drafted because Lincoln was unable to come up with any arguments to refute Slidells points and had conceded that a 2 front war would be the death of the union. Lincoln may have talked about being willing to step down to preserve the Union, but he didn't, he knew his election would mean war and he stayed in the race. However, having caused a war and then lost the union he would most definitely be a one term president in he wasn't impeached. This has to be considered.

I find your argument a stretch at best that the decision hinged on the future election rather than the bigger question of winning the Civil War.

see above, my point is that winning or losing the war also entailed winning or losing the election. Lincoln having chosen war to gain office could only keep that office by winning the war.

As for Slidell and Adams, both had skin in the game as part of the cabinet. The fact that there were two sets of democratic process at work meant the chances for a peaceful outcome according to the processes outlined in DPT and generally applicable to avoiding war in general were doubled.

Nor were the British out for war, in which case they would have attacked, as Lord Russell told Palmerston, “I am still inclined to think Lincoln will submit, but not till the clock is 59 minutes past 11.” Lyon's echoed these sentiments saying, “I was sure from the first day that they would give in, if it were possible to convince them that war was really the only alternative.” The British may not have been bluffing, but neither did they seriously suspect war was brewing. In fact it appears that chest thumping aside, the Trent Affair is a good example of why the core truth espoused by DPT seems to hold true- democracies at odds with one another will find a solution short of war.

[Shek]

All that does it put into question why democracies don't fight. The Church had a theory that the Earth was the center of the universe, Copernicus said it was a Heliocentric universe. It turns out that Copernicus model was faulty even though his claim was right; he didn't account for an ecliptic orbit so his model was off.

We have observed that mature democracies do not fight- not a single instance of it.

Nice story, but it misses the mark. At issue here is correlation vs. causation.

Your observation suffers as evidence as it only provides correlation, and even at that, it's weak. Democracy is a newcomer to the nation-state, really only building its number after WWII. Thus, you have both a very short historical period to build a case and a small number of observations. Then you have to disintangle other causal factors from the form of government - is it Cold War balancing that prevented conflict, regional influence that prevented conflict, geography and resources (or lack there off), net assessment between two potential adversaries (e.g., the US has a lot of resources, but it's not worth fighting us).

Even after you untangle that mess of causal mechanisms, you then have to avoid selection bias, and specifically, survivorship bias by looking at all potential conflicts and see if DPT actually explains the prevention of conflict.

Actually DPT does... You can choose to see all voters as equal, but we know that some voters votes/voice are worth more than others. The poor man votes once at the ballot box, the rich man votes twice with his checkbook and the ballot box.

Special interests argue for DPT not against since they are collections and alliances of citizen voices.

I was able to finally find a strain that voices interest groups (and not someone whispering in the prince's ear) as a causal mechanism. However, your proposition is wrong - special interest groups only provide a mechanism and do not argue for DPT - they can either cause or prevent war depending on the interest and its influence. As an example, the military-industrial complex is oft-cited as being a cause of war.

Rather than direct reference look to implied considerations. In this case look at the American reply to the British demands which won for the US a strategic victory (though never needed) about the rights of neutrals. This reply was drafted because Lincoln was unable to come up with any arguments to refute Slidells points and had conceded that a 2 front war would be the death of the union. Lincoln may have talked about being willing to step down to preserve the Union, but he didn't, he knew his election would mean war and he stayed in the race. However, having caused a war and then lost the union he would most definitely be a one term president in he wasn't impeached. This has to be considered.

see above, my point is that winning or losing the war also entailed winning or losing the election. Lincoln having chosen war to gain office could only keep that office by winning the war.

Occam's Razor applies. Instead of contorted to justify a decision primarily on an event 35 months in the future and ignore the fact that the primary source record doesn't record any discussion of the 1864 election and that such a decision runs counter to the body of evidence on Lincoln's thinking and statements, go with what the evidence shows: Lincoln made decisions based on the outcome of preserving the Union, not because his (non-existent) pollsters told him of the decision's impact on the 1864 election.

As for Slidell and Adams, both had skin in the game as part of the cabinet. The fact that there were two sets of democratic process at work meant the chances for a peaceful outcome according to the processes outlined in DPT and generally applicable to avoiding war in general were doubled.

Slidell did indeed have skin in the game . . . as one of the Confederates detained by the Union. As for Adams, he wasn't a cabinet member.

Nor were the British out for war, in which case they would have attacked, as Lord Russell told Palmerston, “I am still inclined to think Lincoln will submit, but not till the clock is 59 minutes past 11.” Lyon's echoed these sentiments saying, “I was sure from the first day that they would give in, if it were possible to convince them that war was really the only alternative.” The British may not have been bluffing, but neither did they seriously suspect war was brewing. In fact it appears that chest thumping aside, the Trent Affair is a good example of why the core truth espoused by DPT seems to hold true- democracies at odds with one another will find a solution short of war.

No, it doesn't support DPT. The British public wanted war.

[Albany Rifles]

Z,

Your posit on Lincoln looking to the 1864 election as his primary motivationin his actions for the Trent Affair flies in the face of over 10,000 volumes of scholarship. If there was any election he was looking at it would have been the 1862 midterms, not the general in 1864.

DR Charles Hubbard in his excellent Burdens of Confederate Diplomacy probably had the best analysis on the entire Trent Affair....a) it validated the rights of neutrals on the high seas in international law; b) The causus beli for GB fell apart once the US revealed that Wilkes operated without orders...also France stated they would remain neutral in any dispute between the US & GB; c) showed the Europeans that US would defend itself in international matters even if the country was focused on a civil war and d) showed the Europeans that a strictly maintained neutrality on the parts of the GB & France would keep the US from doing anything about Canada and Mexico.

And lets not forget that the spectre of Prince Wheat and King Cod also had an impact on the Europeans. War with the US would cripple markets and economies in both hemispheres and lead to unrest in populations dependent on American foodstuffs.

And once the Emanciaption Proclamation was made any hope for a recognition for the Confederacy.

[Shek]

\And lets not forget that the spectre of Prince Wheat and King Cod also had an impact on the Europeans.

Don't mess with my fish and chips!

[Albany Rifles]

Don't mess with my fish and chips!

Damn Skippy!!!!

[astralis]

AR,

this is secondary to the argument at hand, but wanted to look at this issue.

War with the US would cripple markets and economies in both hemispheres and lead to unrest in populations dependent on American foodstuffs.

it would have been bad for the UK but an utter disaster for the US.

most finance and banking was done in the UK during this period. without london money the US war effort falls apart almost immediately. the inflation which the CSA experienced between 1862-1865 would have been magnified to an even greater extent-- especially as the Royal Navy begins to take apart the USN and starts a blockade. hyperinflation vice the inflation we actually got.

the union blockade of the south would have been broken, and the southern armies would probably be flooded with british/french arms.

but most likely the US capitulates before this or the UK food supply becomes an issue. also see what napoleon the third did: he told the UK, nervous about french intentions in a possible UK-US war, that he would back the UK.

lincoln was very keenly aware that there was no way the US could successfully take on the UK and france in addition to the confederates. he actually worked against the popular sentiment at the time, which was jingoistic to the extreme.

[Shek]

most finance and banking was done in the UK during this period. without london money the US war effort falls apart almost immediately. the inflation which the CSA experienced between 1862-1865 would have been magnified to an even greater extent-- especially as the Royal Navy begins to take apart the USN and starts a blockade. hyperinflation vice the inflation we actually got.

If I ever go back to get my PhD in economics, I think I'll take an economic history course and I'll write my paper on the bond markets assessment of the war, i.e., a wisdom of the crowds take on who was going to win the American Civil War and how various events (political and battlefield) changed expectations.

[astralis]

If I ever go back to get my PhD in economics, I think I'll take an economic history course and I'll write my paper on the bond markets assessment of the war, i.e., a wisdom of the crowds take on who was going to win the American Civil War and how various events (political and battlefield) changed expectations.

i'd love to see that assessment.

on a related note, frankly speaking the north was -extraordinarily- lucky in that the war started in 1861, and that no one intervened. the UK was literally within a week or two from intervening when antietam and the Emancipation Proclamation happened.

much later-- say 5-10 years-- and things would have gotten far, far more difficult for the north.

The Economics of the Civil War | Economic History Services

very revealing figures there. the southern economy was expanding greatly during this time period, as cotton was getting more and more profitable yearly. throughout the 1840s and 50s there was a consolidation of the slave economy in the south, so combined with the technical improvements of the period, slavery was becoming more and more profitable.

this gives the lie to the "lost cause" meme that slavery would have disappeared by itself quietly were it not for yankee aggression.

moreover, the extra wealth would have been invaluable to the south when the war finally started-- plus it would represent a major deterrent on part of the north to do anything, as the slave economy tied itself even more closely to the north.

BTW, there was a LOT of planned infrastructure improvements throughout the 1860s for the South that got sh*t-canned because of the war-- railroads, supply depots, improved road infrastructure-- all of which would help southern interior defense.

the next round of military improvements, too, would be vastly more beneficial for the defense. we've covered gatling guns (which were nascent in the early 1860s). add to that repeating rifles/ubiquitous breechloading rifles, breechloading cannon, barbed wire...