RE Reagan, here's a passage from " The White Pill: A Tale of Good and Evil" by Michael Malice:
"Both Reagan and Gorbachev viewed a nuclear exchange between the two rival superpowers as effectively bringing about the end of the world. To paraphrase the first female Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin, “You can no more win a [nuclear] war than you can win an earthquake.” Even before he assumed office as president, Reagan took part in a discussion about what would happen if the Soviet Union struck first. One participant in the meeting argued that, should missiles be fired, that the United States should just launch a response before we were hit. “That would be the wrong thing to do,” Reagan said. His advisers left the meeting “almost certain that he would not retaliate in the event of an attack”. Gorbachev did Reagan one better. After he assumed leadership of the USSR, Gorbachev was walked through a simulated nuclear strike so that he would know what to do should the unimaginable ever happen. As he sat there being told that missiles were flying toward the Soviet Union, Gorbachev refused to take part in a retaliatory strike. “I will not press the button even for training purposes,” he said.[cdlxxxi] The two men with the most powerful nuclear arsenals in the world were thus committed to never using them—though neither could be sure that the other felt the same."
Agree. I have a suspicion that Ukraine would have been invaded earlier, but there was worry the Ukrainians would have a bunch of actresses protest outside the White House, and Trump would have declared war on Russia.
That is a pretty consistent theory across the time frame I have lived. Carter had the Iranian hostage issue and it was solved the minute Reagan took over. Hence the world respects/fears Republicans and it's game on when a Democrat is in office. Interesting to see it actually play out in the numbers.
The minimum deadlift requirement is 40 pounds. The maximum is 110 pounds. A fairly fit grandmother can now be in the airforce. These are deeply unserious people.
State actors feel safe to make moves with Biden in the seat, or at least confident that his flaccid foreign policy stance means they'll be able to get away with stepping out for a good long while before they catch hands, if they get any at all.
Like it or not our Navy is a major player in global security, and they are majorly overextended, and everyone knows it.
That Reagan story brings to mind something I’ve thought. Jimmy Carter was castigated for being careless with his nuclear codes and losing the aide carrying the football a couple of times. This was a scandal in some circles. I’ve always assumed that Carter was so careless about this because he already knew he would never use them.
Similarly, there is a well known story of Brezhnev at a nuclear command post exercise. When it came time for him to “press the button” he was said to be shaky and blanched and required reassurances that the military was certain the codes and hardware were configured for drill.
Not only did Biden surely cause that war, that also means that Ethiopians were in on the stolen election, because Trump still insisted he won for another 2 months.
I agree with your conclusions about Reagan, Trump, and "now there's no fear." I believed this Trump "strategy" from the beginning. I believe that Ukraine would not have been invaded if Trump was still in office. (Remember that Trump sent weapons to Ukraine.) Not as certain about the Gaza/Israel war but it certainly didn't help that Biden and Obama gave lots of money to and weakened sanctions for Iran. Biden still seems incredibly soft on Iran.
Alright, let's try for some more serious thoughts.
First off, isn't your graph missing or undercounting the Rwandan genocide? At somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million deaths, I think should be the biggest spike of any year in the graph.
Second, it looks like the spike under the Biden admin is mostly just 2 conflicts: the war in Ukraine and Ethiopia's civil war. I'm embarassed to admit I didn't have any idea how deadly the war in Ethiopia is, and only noticed that after trying to parse your graph. It looks like those deaths might also be undercounted, one source says 600,000 dead:
That brings me to another question... what is this data even counting? Is it only deaths of soldiers? Is that why these numbers are so much lower than the civilian death counts? And, if so, is that also why the Bush years look so peaceful? Because I've also seen estimates as high as 600,000 for deaths in Iraq:
That's spread out over a number of years, and some estimates are lower, so maybe you can squeeze that total into a small annual value into that bar chart, but I'm not so sure.
Finally, the important question... who's fault is it?
I'd assume you think that Biden is to blame for Ukraine. But do you think the war in Ethiopia was caused by Biden? How did he start that one?
I'm too young to have ever voted for Reagan. I was in college during 9/11. I thought the invasion of Afghanistan was valid, but unlikely to achieve anything -- it seemed clear that they'd always be a tribal wasteland. And 20 years later, we gave up, and it's still a tribal wasteland. I'm glad Biden left, and I'd be equally glad if Trump left. And I think everyone complaining that it "made us look weak" is just a partisan trying to win points against Biden.
I absolutely fail to see how that one is connected to Ukraine. If your theory of foreign policy is that we need to stay in Afghanistan forever, to look strong, but you also think you're "America First" and "Non-interventionist", you should recognize that's a contradiction.
Most conservatives today seem to think we should have stayed in Afghanistan, but also think we should not be helping Ukraine. I fail to see the logic there, other than pure partisanship and a contrarian belief that anything Biden does is wrong.
I thought George W was a terrible president for invading Iraq. I voted for Obama in the hopes that we'd leave Iraq. We sort of did, and then we were sort of back because of ISIS.
The arab spring happened. Obama greenlit the removal of Gaddafi, then Libya probably ended up an even worse place without him. After a few successful uprisings in other countries, there was an uprising in Syria and Assad put that down brutally. Obama waffled and then mostly let that happen.
How would those years have played out differently, if McCain had been president for 8 years? Honest question, I've never thought about it. Do you have an opinion? Like, the arab spring would still happen either way, right? And McCain would gladly take out Gaddafi, McCain never saw a bombing campaign he didn't like. So... is the difference that he'd aggressively bomb Syria? Woud that eventually lead to a conflict with Russia, given their interests?
Or, skip McCain and just flip the 2020 election. Would Russia not have invaded Ukraine if Trump was president? Or would Putin have invaded and won because Trump would not have intervened? Again, honest question.
I guess it's all fairly complicated. Like, the US president probably has almost no influence on wars in Africa. Those are tribal conflicts and people there know that the US won't intervene anyways.
The US president does have an influence on what happens in the Middle East, both because we are often the one starting those wars, and for other reasons.
Ukraine is a big wildcard. As are potential future wars in, say, Korea or Taiwan.
And, to some degree, all these casualty numbers would be insignificant compared to a real war between major powers, and perhaps the ability of a president to avoid that low probability but high severity event matters more than any of the rest. Of course, it's hard to guess who's best for that job, given that we've never had a nuclear war.
For what it's worth, I did not vote for Trump or Hillary in 2016. I saw (and see) many flaws in Trump, but I actually thought Hillary had the bigger record as pro-war, and I thought that Trump sounded like more of an isolationist.
You rarely read such a stupid analysis. The author confuses correlation with causation. I would argue that Putin invaded the Ukrainian has a consequence of Trump's presidency, not Biden's, because Trump as significantly weakened the authority of the US. Also, the disaster in Afghanistan is a direct consequence of Trump's decision to move out, no matter what.
Well, if the Americans want to be reigned by maniac, let it be. Hopefully, this will be the beginning of the end of American dominance in the world. If Trump is elected even the current partners of the US will push to be less dependent on the US, since Trump is not a partner you need to avoid at all costs.
Looking at that "increase / decrease per year" column, I think it's safe to say that Trump could have managed the #2 slot, edging out GWB, if the 2020 election hadn't been stolen. And obviously, keeping Biden from office would have been a vast improvement. I don't suppose it would quite be justified to grant Trump the inverse of the increase under Biden, but if he takes the 2024 presidency, he might well end up the most peace inducing US president of all time.
RE Reagan, here's a passage from " The White Pill: A Tale of Good and Evil" by Michael Malice:
"Both Reagan and Gorbachev viewed a nuclear exchange between the two rival superpowers as effectively bringing about the end of the world. To paraphrase the first female Congresswoman Jeannette Rankin, “You can no more win a [nuclear] war than you can win an earthquake.” Even before he assumed office as president, Reagan took part in a discussion about what would happen if the Soviet Union struck first. One participant in the meeting argued that, should missiles be fired, that the United States should just launch a response before we were hit. “That would be the wrong thing to do,” Reagan said. His advisers left the meeting “almost certain that he would not retaliate in the event of an attack”. Gorbachev did Reagan one better. After he assumed leadership of the USSR, Gorbachev was walked through a simulated nuclear strike so that he would know what to do should the unimaginable ever happen. As he sat there being told that missiles were flying toward the Soviet Union, Gorbachev refused to take part in a retaliatory strike. “I will not press the button even for training purposes,” he said.[cdlxxxi] The two men with the most powerful nuclear arsenals in the world were thus committed to never using them—though neither could be sure that the other felt the same."
Agree. I have a suspicion that Ukraine would have been invaded earlier, but there was worry the Ukrainians would have a bunch of actresses protest outside the White House, and Trump would have declared war on Russia.
That is a pretty consistent theory across the time frame I have lived. Carter had the Iranian hostage issue and it was solved the minute Reagan took over. Hence the world respects/fears Republicans and it's game on when a Democrat is in office. Interesting to see it actually play out in the numbers.
I think the world is also figuring out that the US military is a joke. For example --
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2023/10/09/want-to-join-the-air-force-now-you-have-to-deadlift/
The minimum deadlift requirement is 40 pounds. The maximum is 110 pounds. A fairly fit grandmother can now be in the airforce. These are deeply unserious people.
You have my vote for National Security Advisor...
Got it in one.
State actors feel safe to make moves with Biden in the seat, or at least confident that his flaccid foreign policy stance means they'll be able to get away with stepping out for a good long while before they catch hands, if they get any at all.
Like it or not our Navy is a major player in global security, and they are majorly overextended, and everyone knows it.
Ouch, my ribs hurt from laughing.
Thank you for teaching me something in such an enjoyable way..
That Reagan story brings to mind something I’ve thought. Jimmy Carter was castigated for being careless with his nuclear codes and losing the aide carrying the football a couple of times. This was a scandal in some circles. I’ve always assumed that Carter was so careless about this because he already knew he would never use them.
Similarly, there is a well known story of Brezhnev at a nuclear command post exercise. When it came time for him to “press the button” he was said to be shaky and blanched and required reassurances that the military was certain the codes and hardware were configured for drill.
Whoa, it looks like the Tigray war in Ethiopia started November 3rd, 2020, the very day that Biden got elected!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Tigray_War
Not only did Biden surely cause that war, that also means that Ethiopians were in on the stolen election, because Trump still insisted he won for another 2 months.
I'm halfway through this and already have so many questions...
Before I get to those, I'll mention that this reminds me of all those articles that graph stock market performance by US president:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sergeiklebnikov/2020/07/23/historical-stock-market-returns-under-every-us-president/?sh=51693fbfaaf4
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-economy-and-the-stock-market-tends-to-do-better-under-democrats-11611158787
So, if Republicans are so good for le economy, why do stocks and the economy do better under Democratic presidents?
I agree with your conclusions about Reagan, Trump, and "now there's no fear." I believed this Trump "strategy" from the beginning. I believe that Ukraine would not have been invaded if Trump was still in office. (Remember that Trump sent weapons to Ukraine.) Not as certain about the Gaza/Israel war but it certainly didn't help that Biden and Obama gave lots of money to and weakened sanctions for Iran. Biden still seems incredibly soft on Iran.
Alright, let's try for some more serious thoughts.
First off, isn't your graph missing or undercounting the Rwandan genocide? At somewhere between 500,000 and 1 million deaths, I think should be the biggest spike of any year in the graph.
Second, it looks like the spike under the Biden admin is mostly just 2 conflicts: the war in Ukraine and Ethiopia's civil war. I'm embarassed to admit I didn't have any idea how deadly the war in Ethiopia is, and only noticed that after trying to parse your graph. It looks like those deaths might also be undercounted, one source says 600,000 dead:
https://english.elpais.com/international/2023-01-27/ethiopias-forgotten-war-is-the-deadliest-of-the-21st-century-with-around-600000-civilian-deaths.html
That brings me to another question... what is this data even counting? Is it only deaths of soldiers? Is that why these numbers are so much lower than the civilian death counts? And, if so, is that also why the Bush years look so peaceful? Because I've also seen estimates as high as 600,000 for deaths in Iraq:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
That's spread out over a number of years, and some estimates are lower, so maybe you can squeeze that total into a small annual value into that bar chart, but I'm not so sure.
Finally, the important question... who's fault is it?
I'd assume you think that Biden is to blame for Ukraine. But do you think the war in Ethiopia was caused by Biden? How did he start that one?
I'm too young to have ever voted for Reagan. I was in college during 9/11. I thought the invasion of Afghanistan was valid, but unlikely to achieve anything -- it seemed clear that they'd always be a tribal wasteland. And 20 years later, we gave up, and it's still a tribal wasteland. I'm glad Biden left, and I'd be equally glad if Trump left. And I think everyone complaining that it "made us look weak" is just a partisan trying to win points against Biden.
I absolutely fail to see how that one is connected to Ukraine. If your theory of foreign policy is that we need to stay in Afghanistan forever, to look strong, but you also think you're "America First" and "Non-interventionist", you should recognize that's a contradiction.
Most conservatives today seem to think we should have stayed in Afghanistan, but also think we should not be helping Ukraine. I fail to see the logic there, other than pure partisanship and a contrarian belief that anything Biden does is wrong.
I thought George W was a terrible president for invading Iraq. I voted for Obama in the hopes that we'd leave Iraq. We sort of did, and then we were sort of back because of ISIS.
The arab spring happened. Obama greenlit the removal of Gaddafi, then Libya probably ended up an even worse place without him. After a few successful uprisings in other countries, there was an uprising in Syria and Assad put that down brutally. Obama waffled and then mostly let that happen.
How would those years have played out differently, if McCain had been president for 8 years? Honest question, I've never thought about it. Do you have an opinion? Like, the arab spring would still happen either way, right? And McCain would gladly take out Gaddafi, McCain never saw a bombing campaign he didn't like. So... is the difference that he'd aggressively bomb Syria? Woud that eventually lead to a conflict with Russia, given their interests?
Or, skip McCain and just flip the 2020 election. Would Russia not have invaded Ukraine if Trump was president? Or would Putin have invaded and won because Trump would not have intervened? Again, honest question.
I guess it's all fairly complicated. Like, the US president probably has almost no influence on wars in Africa. Those are tribal conflicts and people there know that the US won't intervene anyways.
The US president does have an influence on what happens in the Middle East, both because we are often the one starting those wars, and for other reasons.
Ukraine is a big wildcard. As are potential future wars in, say, Korea or Taiwan.
And, to some degree, all these casualty numbers would be insignificant compared to a real war between major powers, and perhaps the ability of a president to avoid that low probability but high severity event matters more than any of the rest. Of course, it's hard to guess who's best for that job, given that we've never had a nuclear war.
For what it's worth, I did not vote for Trump or Hillary in 2016. I saw (and see) many flaws in Trump, but I actually thought Hillary had the bigger record as pro-war, and I thought that Trump sounded like more of an isolationist.
You rarely read such a stupid analysis. The author confuses correlation with causation. I would argue that Putin invaded the Ukrainian has a consequence of Trump's presidency, not Biden's, because Trump as significantly weakened the authority of the US. Also, the disaster in Afghanistan is a direct consequence of Trump's decision to move out, no matter what.
Well, if the Americans want to be reigned by maniac, let it be. Hopefully, this will be the beginning of the end of American dominance in the world. If Trump is elected even the current partners of the US will push to be less dependent on the US, since Trump is not a partner you need to avoid at all costs.
Yes, it would certainly be naive to think that Trump would fight to defend democracy!
Looking at that "increase / decrease per year" column, I think it's safe to say that Trump could have managed the #2 slot, edging out GWB, if the 2020 election hadn't been stolen. And obviously, keeping Biden from office would have been a vast improvement. I don't suppose it would quite be justified to grant Trump the inverse of the increase under Biden, but if he takes the 2024 presidency, he might well end up the most peace inducing US president of all time.