De-escalation is the key choice for humanity
The psychological basis of military escalation is mutual paranoia – the belief, that may or may not have a basis in reality, that another state or organisation is planning to attack one’s own state. The response is to start to build up one’s own military capability. When the other state sees this build up, it stimulates their own build-up, thus completing a vicious circle, resulting in an arms race. History shows that arms races often lead to war.
The Military Industrial Complex (MIC) – an expression which describes the relationship between a nation’s military, the arms manufacturers who supply it, and the politicians who decide on the amount of taxpayers money that will be made available to them – is an important economic driver of militarism, which supplements and exploits the psychological state of mutual paranoia. It involves immense amounts of money – $2.8 Trillion per year – and therefore has immense political influence. The entire reason for arms manufacturers to exist is to increase their profits, and they are the only organisations who stand to profit from war.
The rationale of escalation, of an arms race, is to achieve parity between the participants, but this parity is an elusive fantasy. Secrecy is the order of the day on both sides, making verification impossible, and paranoia magnifies the power of the perceived adversary.
In short, MIC, the engine of military escalation, is
- expensive
- dangerous
- based on mutual paranoia
- aims to achieve balance
- cannot achieve parity
- is not verifiable
In contrast, de-escalation is
- inexpensive
- safer
- based on trust building
- able to achieve balance of power
- verifiable
So by every measurement, de-escalation is the better and more reasonable option.
The blocks to this are twofold: the lobbying power of the MIC, and the propensity of the human mind to fall for paranoia instead of working to build trust.
The work of the global peace movement is to persuade politicians to move from escalation to de-escalation.