Do nuclear weapons (or equivalently massive weapons) not change this equation, by making incumbents incredibly difficult to oust?
Alternatively, would nuclear weapons not make conflicts between warlords either token or devastating?
Does the reliance on extremely high-cost support and weapon systems (satellites, aircraft carriers) not make the barrier to entry for warlords impossibly high?
While the idea of history always repeating itself is appealing, I fail to see how this example can apply in a modern world. Too much has changed, and short of a "mad max" regression, I don't see how feudal China can repeat itself here.
I have no idea, only noticed the recurring trend being described in the article. One thing we do know is nuclear weapons on its own is not sufficient to prevent the condition of warlords and private armies from appearing - Pakistan possesses nuclear weapons yet in the north of the country, tribes and warlords abound.
US interference (incompetent due to corruption and graft?) in Middle Eastern politics allowed ISIS, a warlord-like state, to capture high-cost support and weapons systems and used them successfully against the Iraqi government, a government whose army was less than competent due to the corruption within. The Iraqi government is backed by a country with nuclear weapons and missiles and drones and fighter jets, and yet ISIS persists.
Many US departments are being militarised, from the police to the IRS[1] to the Department of Education[2] to the Environmental Protection Agency[3] and the USDA[4]. I wonder if it's because many in the government itself see militarisation as a necessary reaction to the threat of private weapons, which as you can read in the article is an re-emerging trend. If nuclear weapons and missiles and carriers and drone strikes are sufficient to prevent the US government from being ousted, why is it busy acquiring conventional weapons? If the US government is relying on conventional weapons to hold off the tide of the privately armed, can mere conventional weapons be enough to cause it's --censored--?
With regards to the militarization of the Unites States executive branch I blame the Department of State. State has been an utter failure in their core competency of nation building for the past 30 years. Ethiopia and the Baltics in the '90s, Iraq and Afghanistan in the '00s are examples of State basically abdicating their role to the DoD.
The DoD has been the only major department with the budget, the expert personnel, the logistics, and the organizational will to tackle what should be civilian nation building exercises. It's a poor plan to put a 21 year old marine in charge of securing and rebuilding a village. An armies job is to "go places, kill people, and break their stuff." But for the last few decades the choice for the US has been to send our DoD personnel, or noone.
Because we've increasingly leaned on the DoD for these actions that's bled over to other organizations. A prime example there is the transfer of absurd materials to LEO under the LESO and Excess Property Programs. See also the budget of DHS/ICE/CBP which simply exploded in the last decade by following the militarization path.
If we want to stop the militarization of our society we need to fix our civilian agencies and stop relying on the martial.
I suspect you may mean the Balkans? And the Balkans have actually been a pretty successful outcome.
In Afghanistan and especially Iraq the State department was not allowed to do their job. See [1] where:
Secretary of State [Colin] Powell recently wrote to Defense Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld, urging that State oversee humanitarian assistance, an outcome that would help internationalize the effort. The United Nations and others, like the European Union, have experiences in the past relating to state-building. On the other hand, there are other elements in the administration, notably in the Department of Defense, which are beginning to try to invent a blueprint and map out the capacities in order to have the United States undertake this task alone.
As you note, the DoD took over this role. But it wasn't because of lack of interest of State.
Alternatively, would nuclear weapons not make conflicts between warlords either token or devastating?
Does the reliance on extremely high-cost support and weapon systems (satellites, aircraft carriers) not make the barrier to entry for warlords impossibly high?
While the idea of history always repeating itself is appealing, I fail to see how this example can apply in a modern world. Too much has changed, and short of a "mad max" regression, I don't see how feudal China can repeat itself here.