Politics

Warrior Nation

War exists due to a complex interplay of factors that have persisted throughout human history. At its core, war often emerges from competition over scarce resources – whether that’s territory, water, oil, or fertile land. When groups believe they need these resources to survive or thrive, and peaceful negotiation fails, conflict can escalate to violence. Power dynamics play a crucial role too. Leaders may use war to maintain or expand their authority, rally domestic support, or distract from internal problems. The desire for political control, ideological dominance, or national prestige can drive nations toward conflict even when the material stakes aren’t immediately clear. Fear and perceived threats frequently trigger wars. When one group feels existentially threatened by another – whether that threat is real or imagined – preemptive action can seem like the only viable option. This creates security dilemmas where one side’s defensive measures appear aggressive to others, escalating tensions. Economic factors matter significantly. Trade disputes, debt crises, or competition for markets can create conditions where war seems preferable to economic submission. Historically, empires have often expanded through warfare to secure new sources of wealth. Cultural and religious differences, while rarely the sole cause, can intensify conflicts by making compromise more difficult and dehumanizing the “other side.” When combined with historical grievances – real or mythologized – these differences can sustain conflicts across generations.

The structure of international relations itself contributes to war’s persistence. In a world without a supreme authority to enforce agreements, states must ultimately rely on their own power to guarantee security. This anarchic system, even when most actors prefer peace, can lead to conflicts through miscalculation, misunderstanding, or the breakdown of deterrence. War continues to exist because it sometimes achieves political objectives that seem unattainable through other means, even as its costs have grown enormously in the modern era.

Donald Trump campaigned on the promise that he would end both the Ukraine war and the Gaza war within a day of assuming office. So far, neither conflict has been ended, and, indeed, both have seen escalation. Now we see Israel taking a preemptive action against Iran on the pretense of stopping its nuclear ambitions. Note that Israel is one of the nine nations of the world with full nuclear weaponry capability.

It’s also worth noting that several countries, including Ukraine, have voluntarily given up their nuclear weapons capability. This is quite remarkable given how much effort and resources go into developing them. South Africa is the most notable example. The apartheid government developed nuclear weapons in the 1970s and 1980s, building six nuclear devices. However, as the regime was ending and majority rule approaching, President F.W. de Klerk made the decision to dismantle the entire program. South Africa destroyed its nuclear arsenal in the early 1990s and joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear state in 1991. Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan inherited nuclear weapons when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Ukraine had the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal at the time – about 1,900 strategic warheads and 2,500 tactical weapons. All three countries agreed to transfer these weapons to Russia in exchange for security assurances (including from the US and UK in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum) and economic aid. The transfers were completed by 1996. Brazil and Argentina both had nuclear weapons programs during their military dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s. As they transitioned to democracy, both countries abandoned their programs and created a bilateral inspection system in 1991, later joining the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Libya under Muammar Gaddafi pursued nuclear weapons for decades but agreed to abandon the program in 2003 in exchange for sanctions relief and normalization with the West. International inspectors dismantled Libya’s nuclear infrastructure. These cases show that nuclear disarmament is possible, though it typically happens during major political transitions or in exchange for significant security or economic benefits. The Ukraine case has become particularly relevant given Russia’s 2022 invasion, raising questions about the reliability of security assurances given in exchange for disarmament.

Thanks in large part to Donald Trump, the world has yet again re-escalated its warrior instincts. Russia has been emboldened to persist in its aggressions against Ukraine. Israel has found the reasons to finally go against its unfriendliest neighbor, Iran. It seems China is only a step or two away from exercising its manifest destiny over Taiwan. The U.S. has, under Trump’s foreign policy, both allowed and perhaps even encouraged such warrior actions, while also making its own regional hegemony noises over Panama, Greenland and even Canada. Trump’s choice for Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, has openly stated his desire to restore the warrior mentality in the U.S. military. Trump and Hegseth want us to be a warrior nation.

The relationship between militaristic cultures and prosperity is complex and varies dramatically across history and context. Some warrior societies have indeed prospered, at least temporarily. Ancient Rome built vast wealth through conquest, extracting tribute and resources from conquered territories. The Mongol Empire created unprecedented trade networks and accumulated enormous wealth through their military campaigns. Viking raids and expansion brought riches back to Scandinavia, while Japanese samurai culture coexisted with periods of economic growth.

However, the modern world tells a different story. Today’s most prosperous nations – like Switzerland, Singapore, South Korea, and Germany – tend to prioritize economic development, education, and technological innovation over military expansion. Countries that have focused heavily on military spending at the expense of other sectors often struggle economically. The “warrior nation” approach faces several fundamental problems in the contemporary world. Military spending diverts resources from productive investments in infrastructure, education, and technology. Guns versus butter, as they say. Modern warfare is incredibly expensive, and the economic disruption often outweighs any potential gains. International trade has become far more profitable than conquest – why invade a country when you can simply trade with it? But those seem to be lessons particularly lost on Donald Trump and his military academy background. Moreover, the nature of wealth has changed. Today’s most valuable resources are often intangible – knowledge, technology, financial systems, and human capital. These can’t be easily seized through military force and actually tend to flee from unstable, militaristic societies. Much as we are seeing our best and brightest medical, scientific and university intellect starting to flee our country.

Countries like North Korea demonstrate the limitations of prioritizing military might over economic development. Despite having substantial military capabilities, the focus on defense spending has contributed to economic stagnation and isolation. The most successful modern nations tend to be those that have channeled competitive instincts into economic competition rather than military conquest. They’ve learned that building wealth through trade, innovation, and cooperation is far more sustainable than taking it by force. But as Trump continues to fail economics 101, he is reverting to the authoritarian’s playbook and condoning or going to war. You can even now see that in his immigration policies. As he has started to lose support for deportations from critical support sectors like farming and hospitality, he has chosen to go to war on California, which to him represents the bluest target much admonished by his warrior culture base.

By my count, under Trump we have gone from two global wars to four (adding Iran and California to Ukraine and Gaza) and that seems only to be the beginning. But there is salvation on the horizon in all of this. As we know from the clarity of the hedge fund world that has coined the trading strategy du jour as the TACO trade, Trump Always Chickens Out. It’s true on tariffs. It will become true on immigration. And God knows, if anyone waggles a weapon, nuclear or otherwise, at us, Trump will crumble like the whimpering draft-dodger that lives inside his faux warrior persona. He will soon learn that the real warriors are those that stand up against the warrior nation as many of us plan to do today in protest to his birthday military parade.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *