I think multinational agreements (about anything) between existing military powers, backed by credible threat of enforcement are likely to lead to fewer actual airstrikes, not more.
“Hey bro, we decided if you collect more than 10 H100s we’ll bomb you” is about as clearly violence as “Your money or your life.”
I do actually think there is an important difference between nation states coercing other nation states through threat of force, and individuals coercing or threatening individuals. Calling the former “violence” seems close to the non-central fallacy, especially when (I claim) it results in fewer actual people getting injured by airstrikes or war or guns, which is what I think of as a central example of actual violence.
I think multinational agreements (about anything) between existing military powers, backed by credible threat of enforcement are likely to lead to fewer actual airstrikes, not more.
I do actually think there is an important difference between nation states coercing other nation states through threat of force, and individuals coercing or threatening individuals. Calling the former “violence” seems close to the non-central fallacy, especially when (I claim) it results in fewer actual people getting injured by airstrikes or war or guns, which is what I think of as a central example of actual violence.