c. Mathematical Model and Implications of the 2nd Law

c. Mathematical Model and Implications of the 2nd Law

The mathematical model of the 2nd law describes the following facts:

First, if the cohesion force increases, but the political interest of the political actor (organization) remains the same, it means that the threat has increased. Conversely, if the threat increases, the cohesion force also increases. The fear of an invasion by an enemy crossing the border generates obedience to the power regime. Otherwise, the political organization collapses. In addition, as in the case of France and Austria, which traditionally confronted each other, cooperating with each other while England broke away from Austria to ally with Prussia in the North America confrontation with France in September 1755, this applies to international relations. Here, the relationship between France and Austria, which historically confronted each other, becomes the subject of cohesion.

This case is an example where the cohesion force increased from  \(  \vec{{S}_1}  \)  to  \(  \vec{{S}_2}  \)  as the invasion threat increased from  \(  \vec{{T_{HR}}_1}  \)  to  \(  \vec{{T_{HR}}_2}  \), as shown in [Diag.3.B.6].

 

[Diag.3.B.6] Increase of Invasion Threat and Changes in Cohesion Force

 

The case where the cohesion force was weakened by factional strife despite an external threat can be found in the French Estates-General of the mid-14th century. When the Estates- General attempted to impose restrictions on the king, they failed to unite and could not maintain a consistent policy, resulting in a significant loss of political influence. As a result, the king took measures to cut off the theory that was sprouting, such as the king must obtain the consent of the Estates-General every year when collecting subsidies. This case is an example where the political actor(the Estates-General) was in a state of decline at point '다', despite no change in the invasion threat to them, as shown in [Diag.3.B.7]

 

[Diag.3.B.7] Decrease of cohesion force and shrink of political organization

 

Third, when cohesion force increases, it can compensate for the lack of armament level( \( [Ar] \) ). In other words, if cohesion force increases and the value of armament level decreases, they can complement each other so that the political actor can be maintained without significant changes. Conversely, when external threats decrease, a tendency for the armament level( \( [Ar] \) ) to decrease is also observed. This is the principle of disarmament that occurs when peace comes. During the reign of Sultan Mahmud I of the Ottoman Empire, the Empire attempted to reform its military twice, but both attempts failed as foreign threats disappeared. The first military reform attempt was successful against the Austrian and Russian armies from 1736 to 1739, but it retreated to its original state when the war ended and the threat disappeared. When it tried again in 1770, it fell apart after the war with Russia ended.

The effects of changes in armament level can be summarized in [Diag.3.B.8], which represents the data in graph form."

 

[Diag.3.B.8] Change in Cohesion Force and Invasion Threat as Armament Level Increases

 

"As shown in this figure, when external threat remains constant(\(  \vec{{T_{HR}}_2}  \)), an increase in the armament level leads to a decrease in cohesion force from \(  \vec{{S}_1}  \)  to \(  \vec{{S}_2}  \) . Conversely, when cohesion force remains constant(\(  \vec{{S}_2}  \)), a decrease in invasion threat from \(  \vec{{T_{HR}}_2}  \)  to  \(  \vec{{T_{HR}}_1}  \)  results in a decrease in armament level( \( [Ar] \) ) (moving from solid line to dotted line). On the other hand, under conditions where other factors remain constant, an increase in the armament level can still protect the profits of political actors(organizations), even when invasion threat increases from \(  \vec{{T_{HR}}_1}  \)  to \(  \vec{{T_{HR}}_2}  \).

 

Fourth, if the ideological diversity( \( [Iv] \) ) increases, the overall political crisis will grow even if external invasion threats remain the same. Therefore, cohesion force must be strengthened or armament levels increased to enhance security force. Otherwise, the political regime may weaken, and in extreme cases, collapse. One of the reasons for the decline of the Parthian Empire, which collapsed in 226, was the conflict between religions and ethnic groups that arose in the heterogeneous environment of nomadic cultures, Hellenism, and the fusion of diverse religions and cultures. To maintain the survival capacity of the political actor(Parthia) under such conditions, cohesion force needed to be enhanced, but it failed to do so, leading to its collapse^[Fmla.3.2.5]. 

On the other hand, European Marxists and socialist parties present a case that is opposite to the above. Before World War I, many Marxists and socialist parties pledged that they would not support capitalist governments if war broke out, but When the war broke out in 1914, the workers in each country enthusiastically supported their own nation as if saying, "When did we not?" There are two aspects to this case. First, as the diversity of ideas spread through Marxist and socialist movements, there was a weakening of cohesion force among parties that declared they could not support their government in the event of war due to the increase in ideological diversity. In this case, in order for the survival capacity of European political actors to be maintained, the invasion threat must decrease from \(  \vec{{T_{HR}}_2}  \)  to  \(  \vec{{T_{HR}}_1}  \) . This means that the survival capacity has decreased. Second, as the invasion threat increased due to the outbreak of war, cohesion force was strengthened again. This is a case in which the survival capacity of European countries was assumed to be constant when the invasion threat changed from  \(  \vec{{T_{HR}}_1}  \)  to  \(  \vec{{T_{HR}}_2}  \)  in reality, and cohesion force was strengthened from \(  \vec{S_1}  \)  to  \(  \vec{S_2}  \). Then, the political regime  can be maintained. This can be graphically represented as shown in [Diag.3.B.9].

 

[Diag.3.B.9] Changes in Cohesion and Invasion Threat According to Increased Ideological Diversity