In past centuries and until not so old times, military power was the ultimate criterion of power.
In the past, international problems were often settled in the end by military conflict. Therefore the nations with the most powerful armies had a prominent place in the affairs of the world.
I would say that there was a changed from the Second World War, more precisely from the atomic bomb.
Since the advent of the atomic bomb, a war between great powers is likely to end in thermonuclear exchange.
Consequently, the military option has become less and less feasible due to the risk of the possibility of mutual destruction.
and so I think that today the economy has replaced military power and has become the main criterion of power. military rivalry has been replaced by economic rivalry
Updates
1 y
Please , note that I said that in previous centuries military power was considered the ultimate criterion of power, I did not say the only criterion, but ultimate. Because the economy was mainly used for military power which was then used to make territorial conquests or to defeat a country that threaten your national interests.
Updates
1 y
Today with the nuclear weapon the possibility to have recourse to the army in front of another big power is practically unthinkable. Therefore the economy seems to me to have become since the second world war the ultimate criterion of the power.
Has military power become a secondary criterion for defining power?
No, the question suggests a slightly nuanced misreading of history. In reality, military power, once upon a time, was the standard by which economic power was judged because the idea of the "economy," as an entity, had not yet come into being.
To be sure, modern economics began with Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations" in - an interesting coincidence - 1776. However, the notion of the "economy" as a singular thing really did not come about until the 20th century. Specifically, with the theories of John Maynard Keynes and his idea that man - through government (and this was derivative of the idea of the Enlightenment thinkers, including Adam Smith) - could manipulate the levers of prosperity and produce wealth in a pre-planned manner.
Prior to that time, the "economy" was not measured as such. Rather, various criteria were used. Including food supplies, whether or not people were working, and - most of all - military power. If a country had large and powerful armed forces, it was assumed that it was economically wealthy.
In that sense, military power defined power, but in fact was really simply a yardstick for a concept - the "economy" - that had not yet fully come into conceptualization. Obviously, military power having its own benefits - not least security and self-defense and the ability to project a nation's influence. However, these were seen as a consequence of wealth.
Two things have changed this. First, the idea of the "economy" has developed. It is no longer necessary to measure wealth by military power - and to use it as a definition of the same. The statistical tools - unemployment, inflation, GDP, etc. - now exist to measure wealth. So in that sense, military power has gone from being the yardstick by which wealth is judged, to being simply a product of wealth. (The wealthier nations, even in the modern age, tend to have the more powerful armed forces.)
Secondly, as military power has ceased to be the metric by which wealth is judged, it has, in some sense, seemed to have become something as a "regrettable necessity." Obviously, the more a nation spends on its armed forces, the less it has to spend on jobs, education, aid to the poor, infrastructure, etc. This being particularly true - again - with the theories of John Maynard Keynes and the advent, somewhat later, of the welfare state.
It is not so much that the military has become a secondary criterion for defining power, it is rather that wealth, in absolute terms, can now be measured and thus is the standard. A wealthy nation has a powerful military. Whereas, once upon a time, if a nation had a powerful military, it was assumed to be wealthy.
That said, a powerful military remains a not insignificant indicator of wealth. Compare the wealth and military of France to that of, say, Cameroon. France is wealthier and has the more powerful armed forces. The two are not unrelated. (France is not where it was in 1800, for example, in either category. They - wealth and military power - rose together and declined together. Though again, by global standards, France remains a great power overall.)
Indeed, recent history has shown the limits of using military power as the standard by which power is judged. See also Russia, once the second largest economy on Earth and a massive military capability. Now only the 11th largest economy but still a top military power - at least in terms of short term "teeth," it has less "tail" so to speak.
This pointing up the limits of using military power as the yardstick for defining power. Yet this does not mean that military power is not a reflection of power itself. As the people of Ukraine will attest.
I see, however in the past they tended to use military power very regularly to conquer territories, subjugate other peoples and grab wealth. Today I think the world would be no different from that even today, if nuclear weapons didn't exist.
Take the example of Prussia which later will make Germany. Without its military power it could never have achieved all that it has done. Yet it was not the largest state, the richest (very far from that by the way), and it did not have a huge demography. Believe me at the beginning of the seven years war nobody expected what Prussia was going to achieve, it would be as if today in Switzerland attacking one of the greatest military powers of today. Yet because of its military power Prussia will succeed in imposing itself as a giant. Which will inspire a humorous line from Mirabeau "Prussia is not a state that has an army but an army that has a state".
In the past, a state could compensate for its weak economy with its military power, which could, for example, allow it to defeat states richer than it, which had the effect of enlarging the territory of this state, having access to more resources and having a larger population.
On the other hand For example Holland or other small city-states offers an example of a state having had extraordinary wealth but which being militarily weak (except at the level of maritime power which was the basis of their wealth) will see their wealth collapse and sometimes their territories even, by the very fact that they had less military power and that they could not defend their territories.
Today the army no longer allow to enlarge its territory, its political domination, its population, its wealth. In the past it was possible today not.
I don't know if what I'm trying to explain is clear. I think that my lack of English language is blocking me to make clear and precise explanations.
Please note that even for the past centuries I did not say that military power was the only criterion. And I do not mean that today only the economy is the criterion of power.
Only in the past centuries a small state could become a giant if it was able to have a powerful army that allowed it to conquer territories etc.
I think that if there was no nuclear risk that Putin would not stop at Ukraine but of course I am making political fiction because we cannot know.
First of all, why was force used to conquer territory. Because territory represent safety and wealth. The bigger your territory, the harder you were to conquer. Secondly, in ancient times, territory represented farmland and seashores and that represented food, i. e., wealth.
Again, note my answer to the question. Military power was used as a criteria for defining power because the idea of an "economy" did not yet exist. (It being largely - as the "economy" - a creation of the 20th century.) So if you had a large military, it suggested the ability to acquire wealth.
On your second point, small states were counted as great powers, then and now. Sparta in ancient times. Japan today. Albeit that since WWII, Japan has basically renounced military power and a global role. Yet even still, she is among the G-7 and is considered a "great power."
Please note, I did not say that YOU said that military power was the ONLY criteria for defining power. Rather, you suggested that it has become secondary. To repeat, Russia might beg to differ. As to the past, military power tended to be considered the defining criteria because other metrics, mainly the economy, were to that time too vague. So military power became the measure of other elements of power.
I don't disagree with that. I didn't exactly say that "all" small states were considered great powers in the past, I meant that for example small states that had no demographic, economic, and territorial size assets, succeeded thanks to their military power to acquire important territories sometimes even in front of nations that were much richer, bigger, and demographically important than them. History offers us many examples of this, but I took the example of Prussia because I think it illustrates well.
In today's world, a state like Prussia could never have achieved the conquests it did in the 18th and 19th centuries.
The military power allow to be able to acquire territories and thus different wealth which served itself to increase its military power, which served itself to increase its wealth etc etc. So that's why I agree with you on the substance, but let's not forget that in the past the military conquest was also considered as something glorious and desirable, and that it was to the glory of the conquests, the army and the military that we create sumptuous monuments.
Yes, Japan is the third largest power in the world and it does not need to have an army at the level of its economic power to be considered as such in today's world.
As for Russia, I don't know how it manages to finance such a large army while being the 10th or 11th largest economy in the world. And I am not sure that it was in the interest of Russia to attack Ukraine but I have a limited knowledge on this precise subject.
Anyway, I wish you and your family a good day đ
Hi again - we may be talking past each other a bit. The question you asked was if military power had become a secondary criteria for defining "power."
The jist of my answer was that it really only ever held that position because there were no better criteria available. Military power was measurable. "Economics" did not exist, really until the 20th century. So military power became the default.
Military power - as Russia illustrates - is still an element of "power" status generally. However, as the understanding of economics developed, we tend to focus on other factors. Indeed, as the science of demographics is developing, that is also becoming part of the criteria.
Why, for example, has France declined? There are a variety of reasons, but the aging of its population is increasingly a factor. As the population ages, the tax base shrinks and the pool of potential military recruits shrinks. So while France retains - for its size and population - a relatively huge economy, and its armed forces are exceptionally well trained and equipped by global standards with an independent global reach, it simply no longer can produce the numbers necessary to give it staying power.
Anyhow, hope that helps. Great to chat and all the best to you and your family as well.
Nah, the military is still primary. Just look at how China's stance towards the west has become more antagonistic since they developed hypersonic missiles.
However, the west has been in a cold war with China over our own manufacturing self sufficiency, and intellectual property for decades. The thing is that most of us we're too stupid or blinded by short term greed to realize the truth.
Now wherever possible Chinese nationals have cornered the housing market in the west to exploit our working class, and the poor rampage and die with bodies polluted with Chinese made fentanyl.
Aside from religious wars, which can still be argued, almost every war was about resources, the distillation of âeconomicsâ. Wars were waged only if one or both sides couldnât or wouldnât agree upon terms for trade or surrender of resources. The argument has been made that even religious conflicts were underhandedly about resources. The largest, most powerful religions do have the most wealth even today.
A country (or a person) that has no other skills and talents than destruction indeed still depends on ''military strength''. But I'd say that the ones with power are: the leaders; the country's murder-organization is just their tool. The motivation for a conflict usually comes from economic considerations; and is funded/supported by other 'powerful' people in the economy that will benefit from a successful outcome.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
1 y
Seems reasonable.
Then what must be pointed out is that the US has been openly and actively trying to damage the Russian economy for 20 years, long before Putin's time and that being the case it seems appropriate to me to lay the blame for the current situation in Ukraine where it belongs; at the doorstep of the Americans.
I think you are right about this, except that attaining nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them is used as insurance against an invasion of your country. North Korea used this method to protect against a US invasion, and Iran is in the process of doing the same thing. There is no equivalent economic solution to this potential problem.
Itâs always been Economic and military used to establish that until Woodrow Wilson, Lyndon Johnson, Carter and give our Economy away because of labor unions politicsâŚ
12.8K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
Money is power. Whoever has the most money can buy the beat weapons and have the best military. There is also cyber warfare and that takes boatloads of money too.
This is a great question. Economic power drives military power, and while the latter is useful, itâs not worth that much without a solid economic basis to support it.
