Are "Wars are less deadly than they've been for 12,000 years"?

[Pawn Power]

According to this article they are.

http://www.slate.com/id/2224275/

[ComradeOm]

No


You want more? There have been bad centuries before but the 20th C, with its total war and genocide, stands out as a particularly nasty era. The author tries a lot of fancy footwork and selective numbers to carve that century up but that's just disingenuous. Life in 17th C Germany wasn't too bad... once you ignore those thirty years of war. Similarly there is absolutely no excuse for playing down the millions that have been killed in Africa and Asia since WWII, "remnants of war" my arse

[khad]

You want more? There have been bad centuries before but the 20th C, with its total war and genocide, stands out as a particularly nasty era. The author tries a lot of fancy footwork and selective numbers to carve that century up but that's just disingenuous. Life in 17th C Germany wasn't too bad... once you ignore those thirty years of war. Similarly there is absolutely no excuse for playing down the millions that have been killed in Africa and Asia since WWII, "remnants of war" my arse
Yes, talk about selective. It is telling that the author uses the Yanomamo, one of the most warlike warrior cultures, as an example of a "tribal society." By contrast, in many premodern societies found in places such as Africa had warfare that was ritualized to such an extent that it was a scheduled annual event in which very few got killed.

[New Tet]

I did'nt wade into the article posted above, so I'll respond to the statement.

I think wars are far more deadly now than ever. Modern weaponry is more efficient at killing and so widespread that all attempts at controlling them have failed.

[Pawn Power]

I did'nt wade into the article posted above, so I'll respond to the statement.

I think wars are far more deadly now than ever. Modern weaponry is more efficient at killing and so widespread that all attempts at controlling them have failed.

Yes, killing is more efficient, but does it occur more often? This article provides evidence stating no, it does not.

One thing is for sure, Super Power, or even just major power, don't war with each other much anymore. Mainly this is because of a mutual threat of atomic retribution.

[kalu]

Well based on Dr. Gino Strada's work, the civilian casualty statistics in war have soared during the 20th century. It's something ridiculous like 80% of casualties in war are now civilians. Even during the worst pillages and sacks of cities in premodern times, invaders didn't literally blow cities up (Hiroshima, Dresden anyone?) I find it extremely hard to believe that premodern warfare was more deadly, given the rapid spread of machine guns and explosives in the 20th century to some of the world's poorest countries. Though the authors point that war can be ended is well-taken, if way too vague and based on an erroneous empirical analysis :/

[ComradeOm]

Well based on Dr. Gino Strada's work, the civilian casualty statistics in war have soared during the 20th century. It's something ridiculous like 80% of casualties in war are now civilians. Even during the worst pillages and sacks of cities in premodern times, invaders didn't literally blow cities up (Hiroshima, Dresden anyone?) I find it extremely hard to believe that premodern warfare was more deadly, given the rapid spread of machine guns and explosives in the 20th century to some of the world's poorest countries. Though the authors point that war can be ended is well-taken, if way too vague and based on an erroneous empirical analysis :/While the practice of deliberately targeting a civilian population is largely a 20th innovation (a logical response to 19th C developments) the degree to which civilians were not impacted by "pre-modern warfare" can be overstated. Pre-industrial societies were obviously far more prone to the disease and famine that inevitably accompanies warfare. The Thirty Years War, to give the most obvious example, produced extreme hardship for the civilian population (far more so than the soldiers involved) that effectively laid waste to much of Germany and may have killed up to a third of civilians in the affected areas


Yes, killing is more efficient, but does it occur more often? This article provides evidence stating no, it does notThe article provides no "evidence" beyond selective figures. For example, its plainly false to suggest that wars are more uncommon in the 20th C than they were in, for example, the preceding 19th C

[khad]

The article provides no "evidence" beyond selective figures. For example, its plainly false to suggest that wars are more uncommon in the 20th C than they were in, for example, the preceding 19th C
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/index.html

List of ongoing conflicts:

Algeria Insurgency (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/algeria-90s.htm) 1992 -->
Angola Cabinda (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/cabinda.htm) 1975 -->
Burma Insurgency (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/burma.htm) 1950 -->
China Senkaku Islands (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/senkaku.htm) 1968 -->
China Spratly Islands (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/spratly.htm) 1988 -->
China Uighur (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/uighur.htm) 1996 -->
Colombia Insurgencies (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/colombia.htm) 1970s-->
Congo (Zaire) Congo War (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/congo.htm)1998-->
Georgia Civil War (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/georgia.htm)1991-->
India Assam (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/assam.htm) 1985 -->
India Kashmir (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kashmir.htm) 1970s-->
India Naxalite Uprising (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/naxalite.htm) 1967 -->
Indonesia Aceh (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/aceh.htm)1986 -->
Indonesia Kalimantan (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/dayak.htm)1983 -->
Indonesia Maluku (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/maluku.htm) 1999 -
Indonesia Papua / West Irian (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/papua.htm) 1963 -->
Israel Al-Aqsa Intifada (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/intifada2.htm) 2000 -->
IsraelLebanon (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/lebanon-change-of-direction.htm)2006 -->
Ivory Coast Civil War (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/ivory-coast.htm) 2002 -->
Korea Korean War (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/korea-crisis.htm)1953 -->
Laos Hmong Insurgency (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/laos.htm)2000 -->
Moldova Transdniester (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/transdniester.htm) 1991-->
Namibia Caprivi Strip (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/caprivi.htm) 1966-->
Nepal Maoists (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/nepal_insurgency.htm)1996 -->
Nigeria Civil Disturbances (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/nigeria.htm) 1997 -
Pakistan Baluchistan (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/pakistan1.htm) 2004 -
Pakistan Pashtun Jihad (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/pakistan2.htm) 2001 -
Palestine Civil War (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/palestine-civilwar.htm) 2007-->
Peru Shining Path (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/sendero_luminoso.htm) 1970s-->
Philippines Moro Uprising (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/milf.htm) 1970s-->
Russia Chechen Uprising (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/chechnya.htm) 1992 -->
Somalia Civil War (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/somalia.htm) 1991-->
Spain Basque Uprising (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/eta.htm) 1970s-->
Sudan Darfur (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/darfur.htm)1983 -->
Thailand Islamic Rebels (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/thailand2.htm) 2001 -->
Turkey Kurdistan (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/kurdistan-turkey.htm) 1984 -->
Uganda Civil Conflict (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/uganda.htm) 1980 -->
United States Afghanistan (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/enduring-freedom.htm) 1980 -->
United States Djibouti (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/oef-djibouti.htm) 2001 -->
United States Iraq (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_reconstruction.htm) 1990 -->
United States Philippines (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/balikatan.htm) 1898 -->
Uzbekistan Civil Disturbances (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/war/uzbekistan.htm) 2005 -->
Yemen Sheik al-Houti (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/shabab-al-moumineen.htm) 2004 -->

[Fictional]

Depends, if you look at Vietnam with napalm and spike traps, civilian loses and the current war in Iraq/Afghan.

But then look at Medevil times and consider someone running around with maces with spikes attached to the end, it's a hard subject.

[Blake's Baby]

The way the estimates for previous societies (especially pre-historic societies) have been calculated is somewhat flawed.

Firstly, the use of modern societies to provide a benchmark to project back onto previous societies, which are then generalised to provide an average, is a bit of slight of hand. Just because modern hunter-gatherers (in a context of small enclaves surrounded by capitalist relations) live in violent societies that doesn't mean that all previous hunter-gatherer societies were equally violent - all it does is prove societies are violent now.

Secondly, the archaeological data on pre-historic warfare is ambiguous at best.

The rates of death from violence of between 14-25% for any ancient society I think should be treated with extreme scepticism.

[scarletghoul]

That list is slightly out of date but yeah, there are loads of wars going on, even if many of them are low intensity.
In the 21st Century alone there have been a few million civillian deaths in major wars like Iraq, Congo, Afghanistan.

One thing is for sure, Super Power, or even just major power, don't war with each other much anymore. Mainly this is because of a mutual threat of atomic retribution.
True there are not many wars between strong countries, but there are still a lot of imperialist wars. Wars of imperialism result in a lot of civilian casualties because the imperialist country is often fighting a whole people, rather than just a foreign army.
It's also worth noting that we're living in a time where America is still the only superpower, and is expanding its empire without much interferance from other powers. But when other countries decide to challenge the USA seriously, things could get a lot worse (not that they're not bad already). We're only 9 years into this century. Who knows what slaughter lies ahead?

[Sarah Palin]

Meh, I call bullshit. 12,000 years ago the population of the world was miniscule compared to today, so saying "in 2009 terms, that's a trillion people..." is a crap argument. Also, conflicts that long ago were no way as destructive as they are today. They didn't have ballistic missiles, tanks, automatic rifles, and biological weapons. The atomic bombings of Japan killed many people on the spot, but those that survived died in the years to come because of cancers and such developed by the bombing. There have also been many more conflicts, with much more casualties, as khad noted.

[Blake's Baby]

But the point is the proportions. They're not claiming more people died. They're saying that in the past a quarter of the population died of violence, now it's only 2% (or whatever), that's got to be better, right?

It's still crap, but you have to be clear on what basis it's crap, I think.

[Black Dagger]

While the practice of deliberately targeting a civilian population is largely a 20th innovation (a logical response to 19th C developments) the degree to which civilians were not impacted by "pre-modern warfare" can be overstated.

Whilst you have covered a bit of ground at the end there (about overstatement)... what makes you say this in the first place?

I think there is a tendency to focus on the 20thC as being some kind of exceptional period in human history (whether it be for good or bad reasons), but it's really quite a contrived argument- not yours - but the general idea of looking at 'centuries' as if they were coherent or meaningful units of time rather than arbitrary distinctions in the past, of time. Of course the proximity of the 20th and our lack of a time machine (in order to see the future) makes us very preoccupied with comparing what is essentially our present with more distant pasts, it makes sense to do that - it is more accessible to us than any other point in time. But the comparisons are usually quite flimsy and ultimately underminded by the power of the recent.

In terms of what you have said specifically, i guess if you chose quite narrow definitions of the words you have used a strong argument could be made, like depending on how you define civilain, 'deliberate' etc. but that aside, deliberately targeting civilians a 20thC innovation, how so?

Prior to the 20thC the idea of armies distinct from the 'civilan' population had much less currency. Whilst there were professional armies and soldiers, many people who fought in conflicts were not professional soldiers. Pre-20thC warefare required thousands of feet on the ground, victory often tookplace on a battlefield (as distinct to say, the street-fighting of Iraq War II), but the conquering of territory was also achieved through siege-warfare, the capturing of important cities, ports, trade hubs or geographical significant towns, forts etc. In the pre-20thC there were no international war crime tribunals, no UN, no international law of war - no conception of 'human right's (well closer to 20thC there was, but that was not to develop for centuries of human civilisation), nothing to emphatically draw the line or enforce any kind of war 'standard', who was a 'civilian' and who was not was not defined (though obviously individuals adhered to their own standards).

Now, that is not to say that the UN, international criminal courts, 'human rights' etc. - that these concepts play any preventative role in terms of war crimes or other atrocities - but rather that territory, people, was not conceived of as containing 'civilans' or 'combatants' and 'non-combatants', often non-soldiers were easy victims to travelling armies - attacked for food, and other provisions, live stock, rape, etc. This situation was exaggerated by the need to keep a large body of people (the army on the move) healthy, fit and happy across large distances. Also, as the ancient defensive strategy of 'build big walls around your city' worked so well (hence the significance of effective siege weapons), often capturing a city took days, if not weeks of fighting (during which time the people of the city. Often justified by xenophobia, racism, religion, like say the Crusades, the enemy was not just on the battlefield but also the people of the territory you invading.

Long story short, expansionist, imperialist or what-have-you armies have never had qualms about deliberately attacking civilians, indeed it could be a necessary condition of victory (spread disease in a city to weaken its resolve/defences), or a result of a loot-mentality, or ideological factors (slaughtering heathens/savages/what-have-you). Like you don't think if they had the technology the european warlords responsible for the Crusades might not have just carpet-bombed large areas of the 'Holy Land' (careful around the 'holy' sites of course!) I mean, if it didn't jepordise their control of territory or access to loot.

[ComradeOm]

While, as I said, civilians have never been untouched by warfare, I do agree with those who argue that there was something of a fundamental shift in the nature of European warfare around the beginning of the 19th C. During the previous centuries combat had largely been restrained to relatively small and professional standing armies*. There is no question that civilian populations suffered at the hands of these forces as poor logistics, a reluctance to risk such a force in open battle, and, in the case of sieges, simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time, often devastated local communities. As I pointed out above. Nonetheless this was not in itself the purpose of war. To use the modern expression, civilians were simply 'collateral damage' and particularly vulnerable to the hardships that inevitably accompany war

In contrast to pre-modern warfare, with its limited armies fighting limited wars for limited goals, the French Revolution and the rise of the bourgeois nation-state has given rise to total war. That is, the mobilisation of a nation's entire resources for the defence of the capitalist state. In this concept a country's civilian population itself becomes a real asset/resource** and victory hinges on destroying that of the opposing population. No longer simply peasants, civilians were now Frenchmen, or Belgians, or Germans, etc, and considered targets in their own right. That's the logic that gave rise to 'dehousing' or concentration camps. That's "deliberate" and its something that was not a noted feature of pre-20th C warfare***

To give an example. You mention sieges which are, naturally, harsh on the civilian population. No getting around that but that's the unfortunate result of having civilian populations living within fortified areas. With few exceptions the civilians were not themselves involved in the defence and were not deliberately targeted by the attackers. I believe the first time that a civilian population was explicitly targeted in a siege was at Strasbourg in 1870 where Prussian cannons were deliberately turned on the old town in an attempt to terrify the civilian leadership into convincing the military command to surrender the fort. The same tactic was repeated, with less success, with Paris in the same year. At the time the idea of simply lobbing artillery shells into populated was completely novel but in the coming decades it would evolve into terror bombing and genocide as destroying civilian populations themselves became a priority

* Which, while growing through the years, were deliberately kept professional in order to serve their dual function as military and police

** And was often perceived as being literally so. Witness the rise of pro-natal propaganda and policies from the turn of the 20th C as nations tried to close the 'population gap'. Military policy suddenly revolved around census figures and birth rates

*** 'Not a noted feature' is obviously a very vague term but I'm aware that there are naturally exceptions


Like you don't think if they had the technology the european warlords responsible for the Crusades might not have just carpet-bombed large areas of the 'Holy Land' (careful around the 'holy' sites of course!) I mean, if it didn't jepordise their control of territory or access to lootWhich is a false scenario really. If the Crusaders had possessed modern technology then they would have similarly possessed modern economic and political systems. There's no question that technology has made increased targeting of civilian populations easier (as its fuelled the ability to wage an insurgency) but, as I point out above, it, and the accompanying emergence of capitalism, has also made it an increasingly central component of modern warfare

On the Crusades, its also worth mentioning that there was never any systematic programme of genocide. There were obviously many slaughters, which were not the norm in European warfare, but these can be ascribed to specific circumstances as well as the zealot's mentality. Exact figures are obviously an impossibility, but the vast majority of the peasant population would have remained as it was before the establishment of the KoJ with Muslims making up either a majority or substantial minority of this population

[ChrisK]

Lets see, hunter-gatherer society (band society) about fifty people in one group. 17% of deaths is 7 people dying in war. Tribal groups of 12,000 years ago tended to be about 100-200 people. 200 person society only needs 34 to die in a war to meet the 17%. Honestly if you have 80 men fighting for a hunting ground against another 80 men today with guns, the deaths would be far more than 34 per side. This study is bullshit.