Skip to main content
Politics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

8
  • 3
    In history, there are examples where "strategism" has seemingly worked, such as the Cold War period where the United States and the Soviet Union engaged in a long-term military buildup that contributed to a balance of power and deterrence. However, there are also examples, like World War I, where "strategism" may have contributed to the outbreak of conflict due to the perception that delay would result in a disadvantage
    – Clap 'No Hands' Politics
    Commented Sep 30, 2023 at 12:38
  • 1
    @The'BernieSanders'Party, an event applicable from the Cold War is the NATO missile crisis of 1962-63. That concluded by the US withdrawing nuclear weapons and reducing their strike capabilities in response to Soviet demands - in other words, engaging in the opposite of what I'm calling "strategism". A strategist response would have been to defy the Soviet demand for withdrawal, and add further nuclear weapons at the forefront. Had the US had a reputation for strategism of course, they wouldn't have had time to talk - the Soviets would have launched a total nuclear strike without delay. (1/2)
    – Steve
    Commented Sep 30, 2023 at 13:32
  • 1
    What I'm calling strategism isn't merely about building up, it's accompanied by a determination to be confrontational or to alter the status quo without consent, and the belief that one will prevail in that confrontation by preparing or acting sooner. Implicitly, there is the belief that the opponent will not or cannot respond to the material preparations or even to the very existence of the strategist mentality before preparations have occurred. (2/2)
    – Steve
    Commented Sep 30, 2023 at 13:33
  • 4
    I'm not seeing the "strategism" term in that article. Perhaps you've read it somewhere else? Anyhow, based on your comments, it seems to be a notion you came up with. As such it can mean anything you like so attempts to answer your Q rather fall into satisfying the "am I right?" kind of Q.
    – got trolled too much this week
    Commented Sep 30, 2023 at 17:25
  • 1
    I feel like you should geve a more condensed definition of this term in the question, at the very least - include the clarifications you've given in comments. At this point, it is clear that people trying to answer do not grasp your concept ("What I don't see much of here is any clear question", to quote one of the answers), and I am inclined to vtc as "needing clarity".
    – Danila Smirnov
    Commented Oct 2, 2023 at 4:20