GloriousRuse wrote:Incidentally, “threats and caving” basically makes up the majority of use of force questions.
“If you do this, we’ll do that”. And then both does sit there wondering how serious the other side is, and if it’s worth paying the price. If the answer comes back as “yes, the other side is serious, and no, it’s not worth the price” then you back down.
For example, the price of invading the DPRK is virtually assured destruction of Seoul, millions of civilian deaths, 100ks of ROK casualties, 10ks of US casualties, and possibly having a war with China if things go wrong. Which is why no one seriously considered it until recently when the potential of nuking LA became a real thing.
So in a sense, yes, every leader you have had in your lifetime has probably spent more time “caving” than they would ever admit. Every African war that we decide isn’t worth it, every Iranian militia we don’t drag into an open war, every state based cyber-attack against the financial sector, every show down in the pacific that leaves the Chinese a little more unofficial territory, every South American nation that imposed unanswered tariffs because the trade war isn’t worth it...
Every day, in every way, leaders cave under perceived or explicit threats. The alternative is pretty much perpetual war.
Mostly all true and I only say "mostly" because there may be things that have turned out well that I do not know about. How much simpler, before the threat of nuclear annihilation, when Great Britain could tell Germany that they stand guarantee to another nation's sovereignty and invasion meant war. Mutual defense alliances still exist, but are ultimately backed by MAD and we hope that is something an opponent would not want to test.