The Angry White Man

On Feb 25, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Feb 25, 11:30 am, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:



On Feb 25, 1:07 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

On Feb 25, 9:29 am, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:

On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, " wrote:

On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
Ken

Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps the war
option, I suppose?

Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years devoid of
business interests.

Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to go
digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until I find
one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written by a well-
respected economist, that was very popular in its time. It carefully
explained how, due to the interconnected nature of international
trade, widespread war was now impossible because it would call too
much economic damage to everyone involved.
Written in 1912.
-JTD

That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
ICBM's because the other are guys are.

ICBMs were involved in the buildup to World Wars I and II? Do tell.

Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
told they should.

Perhaps true. Even probably true. And almost certainly true of
Americans and Chinese today, or most people all over the world for
that matter. But war happened anyway. So what has changed in the
past 60 years, or even the past 30, that prevents such a situation
from devolving into war?
JTD

I'm lookin at history from 5000BC to the present.
Mongols slaughtered 30 million chinese using a
sword (not the same one), hence the sword is a
weapon of mass destruction, that's why I think
one should take care to the analysis of the 1000
ancedotal tactical battles, humans have fought.



Okay, hang on.

In your original post, you implied that wars weren't going to happen
any more, because they would be a "business mistake", that the world
had gotten too interdependent for a wider war. Others (including
myself) pointed out that for most of human history, war has been a bad
move, economically, and that in fact your thesis had been put forward
early in the 20th Century just before the most devastating wars the
human race has ever fought- and that wars keep happening anyway,
besides being really bad for business in general. In the post you
replied to, I pointed those things out, and asked what you thought had
changed in the years since that meant that this time, business
concerns would trump out, and wars wouldn't happen.

In response, you're invoking 5000 years of history, and calling us to
analyze the wars that humans have fought.

That's a non sequieter, but let's look at it for a second. The last
time anyone could make a case that "war pays for war" between
civilized states with a straight face was in the early 18th Century,
when conscript armies under folks like Blenheim were merrily marching
back and forth blowing the Hell out of civilized Europe. They spent
most of their time "levying contributions", which is a nice way of
saying "we marched into this state and forcibly stripped it of pretty
much anything of value to feed and pay the troops". Since the armies
didn't require a terrible lot of manufactured goods that couldn't be
captured and since international trade wasn't a big deal at the time,
this meant that an army in the field could more or less sustain itself
indefinitely with minimal expenditure from home. Any territory it
captured was more or less gravy for the homeland. As you can imagine,
this led to some awfully long wars.

*After* that time, though, the balance tips the other way. Sustaining
an army in the field takes a lot of manpower, a lot of high-end
manufactured goods, and a lot of mundane supplies like food and
clothing- and you have to supply those on your own now, because armies
have gotten big enough that you can't gather what you need by "levying
contributions"/bank robbery on an international scale. All of that
takes money, and lots and lots of it. All of this means that since (I
would say) about the mid 18th Century, fighting and winning a war is
almost always going to cost more money than any *economic* benefit you
could get out of it.

[All of this applies, of course, to wars between cultures with roughly
equal technology. I haven't looked at the figures in detail, but it's
entirely possible that some of the colonial wars that pitted breech-
loading rifles against spears ended up being economic wins in the long
run. Although conquest was generally one thing, pacification
another.]

The thing is, though, that wars still happen between industrialized
countries, and have for a long time. Even though they're economic
losers, they still happen. Because they can bring political benefits,
like more territory for the Big Man to rule or showing that your
country is not to be trifled with. Because they can fulfill
somebody's idea of national destiny. Because people do stupid things,
don't consider the consequences that their actions might have years
down the road, and get painted into corners. And any of those things
could still happen between the U.S. and China.

I devoutly hope they don't, because the one thing I do think you're
right about is that such a war would very likely be ruinous for both
sides and because I think wars in general are to be avoided, even if
they're sometimes necessary. But saying that it can't happen is
wrong, and dangerous because if we assume it can't happen we may not
be vigilant enough to keep it from happening.

So, with the above in mind: why, specifically, do you think that the
U.S. and China are so economically interdependent as to render war
between them impossible?

-JTD

On Feb 25, 1:11 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



I think Old Bush's "New World Order" could have
re-vamped the UN, to unify the planet better., it's
time has come.
Ken

Unify the planet under...?
And what of those who would rather not be unified...?
No Thanks.
Dan

Straightfoward question to Dan.
Do you want your kids to shoot the other kids
before discussing an issue?

If you say "shoot 1st, ask questions later",
is that a good way to resolve problems?
Ken

On Feb 25, 4:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
On Feb 25, 1:11 pm, " wrote:

On Feb 25, 4:08 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

I think Old Bush's "New World Order" could have
re-vamped the UN, to unify the planet better., it's
time has come.
Ken

Unify the planet under...?
And what of those who would rather not be unified...?
No Thanks.
Dan

Straightfoward question to Dan.
Do you want your kids to shoot the other kids
before discussing an issue?

If you say "shoot 1st, ask questions later",
is that a good way to resolve problems?
Ken

My kids all knew how to shoot by the time they were 5.

What's your question?

Dan

On Feb 25, 4:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:
On Feb 25, 3:41 pm, " wrote:



On Feb 25, 2:42 pm, Jeff Dougherty
It doesn't even have to be emotion, either- when you're leading a
country, the economic is just one of the dimensions you have to
contend with. Take the U.S. and Japan in the years just before WWII:
Japan imported much more from the U.S. than she exported, and from a
strictly economic point of view the best thing might have been to let
Japan's campaign of conquest in Asia go on. Most of the things Japan
was importing were manufactured goods as opposed to raw materials,
with the exception of a few things like bauxite that weren't really
present in the territories under attack anyway, so absent any U.S.
interference it's likely that trade deficit would have increased, if
anything, to feed Japan's war effort. From a strict making-money
point of view, the thing to do would be to let Japan grab what it
could- but the political consequence would have been accepting
Japanese hegemony in Eastern Asia, which was unacceptable to the U.S.
There are more things on heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in
economics texts.

-JTD

Wait a second ...

This ahistorical drivel needs to be corrected, and fast.

WW2 wasn't simply a clash of Empire.

Despite the best efforts of various revisionsists, the reality was
that WW2 pitted various democracies (in spite of all the imperfections
of each) against totalitarian regimes that posited racial superiority
as validation of their claims.

snip

I think we may be in violent agreement here. :-)

The point I was trying to make was that wars happen for many, many
reasons, and that national leaders have to consider many, many
different dimensions when they're making decisions. Reducing the
entire thing to economics, as the poster I was initially replying to
did, is a dangerous oversimplification. All I was doing with that
part of my post is illustrating my point by looking at *one* of the
other dimensions that led to war between the U.S. and the Japanese
Empire in the Pacific. I did not mean to suggest that there weren't
any others, or that politics alone could explain the war any more than
economics could, or that the Pacific War was a "clash of Empire".
(For one thing, it's a bit hard to have a "clash of Empire" when one
party is in the process of giving up its empire in the area, as the
U.S. was doing at the time WWII kicked off.) There are a lot of other
dimensions that I could have picked, and many more if I wanted to look
at the Japanese decision to attack the U.S. I was just making a point
about the causes of war in general, and the dangers of looking at one
particular factor as the end all and be all.

As a side note, I would agree with you that anyone who says the U.S.
and Japan were ideologically equivalent at the time simply hasn't done
the reading.

-JTD

OK, thanks for the clarification.

My WW2 reading was buttressed by my Father's experience (DEs and Subs
in the Pacific).

Dan

On Feb 25, 4:34 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:

*After* that time, though, the balance tips the other way. Sustaining
an army in the field takes a lot of manpower, a lot of high-end
manufactured goods, and a lot of mundane supplies like food and
clothing- and you have to supply those on your own now, because armies
have gotten big enough that you can't gather what you need by "levying
contributions"/bank robbery on an international scale. All of that
takes money, and lots and lots of it. All of this means that since (I
would say) about the mid 18th Century, fighting and winning a war is
almost always going to cost more money than any *economic* benefit you
could get out of it.


-JTD

Not really.

The Russians did a pretty good job of pillaging and looting on their
merry way back west.

The Hutu's and Tutsi's did their thing without an extensive logistical
tail.

The Eastern Bloc arms were all designed to feed NATO rounds, so on
their way west they could capture NATO stockpiles and put them to use.

I'm always wary of simplified explanations for/against War. As a
professional soldier (once) and a mildly interested historian the more
I learn, the more I am in awe of war's way of encompassing all the
worst and best of humanity.

Dan

" wrote in
:

On Feb 25, 2:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
" wrote
innews:aa1f5080-a55c-40e0-954a-647c765d1565
@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.c
om:



On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
:

That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
ICBM's because the other are guys are.
Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
told they should.

What bout fuedin'?

Bertie

Now that's jes plain fun...

You reckin?

bertie

A yup -- I'm in Pennsylucky -- we knows all abouts feudin'!


Pennsylucky? OK...

Lucky iffin you don't get shot by a stray 30-06, ya mean!


Bertie

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

On Feb 25, 11:30 am, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:
On Feb 25, 1:07 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:



On Feb 25, 9:29 am, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:

On Feb 23, 1:04 pm, "
wrote:

On Feb 23, 12:45 pm, "Ken S. Tucker"
wrote:

I think war is usually a business mistake, nowadays.
Ken

Right, and that is always the overriding concern that trumps
the war
option, I suppose?

Certainly that was the case in 1861, 1914, and 1939 -- years
devoid of business interests.

Every time that argument comes up, I'm more and more tempted to
go digging through the college textbooks I have in storage until
I find one reading that mentions a very compelling book, written
by a well- respected economist, that was very popular in its
time. It carefully explained how, due to the interconnected
nature of international trade, widespread war was now impossible
because it would call too much economic damage to everyone
involved. Written in 1912.
-JTD

That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
ICBM's because the other are guys are.

ICBMs were involved in the buildup to World Wars I and II? Do tell.

Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
told they should.

Perhaps true. Even probably true. And almost certainly true of
Americans and Chinese today, or most people all over the world for
that matter. But war happened anyway. So what has changed in the
past 60 years, or even the past 30, that prevents such a situation
from devolving into war?
JTD

I'm lookin at history from 5000BC to the present.


Got stuck in your outhouse again, eh?


Bertie

On Feb 25, 5:05 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:34 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:



*After* that time, though, the balance tips the other way. Sustaining
an army in the field takes a lot of manpower, a lot of high-end
manufactured goods, and a lot of mundane supplies like food and
clothing- and you have to supply those on your own now, because armies
have gotten big enough that you can't gather what you need by "levying
contributions"/bank robbery on an international scale. All of that
takes money, and lots and lots of it. All of this means that since (I
would say) about the mid 18th Century, fighting and winning a war is
almost always going to cost more money than any *economic* benefit you
could get out of it.

-JTD

Not really.

The Russians did a pretty good job of pillaging and looting on their
merry way back west.

Hmm, that's a counterpoint I hadn't thought about. Considering how
worked over the USSR was during the war, though, I'd doubt they really
came out ahead from a profit/loss point of view. Of course, that part
of the war wasn't ever about economics from their point of view- it
was about political survival, and making sure that they could never be
threatened from that quarter again. (IMHO)

The Hutu's and Tutsi's did their thing without an extensive logistical
tail.

Point. One could argue that they're not really functioning at a level
much above the 18th Century armies, but that's not really true
either. My thesis looks like it might have to go back to the drawing
board.

The Eastern Bloc arms were all designed to feed NATO rounds, so on
their way west they could capture NATO stockpiles and put them to use.

True, but could they really have sustained *all* of their operations
from NATO stockpiles? Even if they could supply all of their ammo
needs, would they have been able to capture enough food? POL?
Clothing? Spare parts?

You can certainly reduce your logistics headaches by looting, but I'd
argue that expecting an army to sustain itself without requiring any
real money spent at home by doing so in the modern age probably isn't
going to work. On the other hand, I haven't served and I'm strictly
an amateur historian, so I could be wrong.

I'm always wary of simplified explanations for/against War. As a
professional soldier (once) and a mildly interested historian the more
I learn, the more I am in awe of war's way of encompassing all the
worst and best of humanity.

That's certainly true, and I hope I haven't come across as trying to
simplistically explain war. My argument was that it's probably been a
long time since somebody actually made a buck, so to speak, by going
to war, and so (contra the OP) you have to look at dimensions other
than the economic to see why wars happen. I may have to rethink that
a bit in light of the examples you posted above, particularly with
respect to warfare in relatively unindustrialized countries.

Thanks for your service.

-JTD

Dan

On Feb 25, 5:01 pm, " wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:



On Feb 25, 3:41 pm, " wrote:

On Feb 25, 2:42 pm, Jeff Dougherty
It doesn't even have to be emotion, either- when you're leading a
country, the economic is just one of the dimensions you have to
contend with. Take the U.S. and Japan in the years just before WWII:
Japan imported much more from the U.S. than she exported, and from a
strictly economic point of view the best thing might have been to let
Japan's campaign of conquest in Asia go on. Most of the things Japan
was importing were manufactured goods as opposed to raw materials,
with the exception of a few things like bauxite that weren't really
present in the territories under attack anyway, so absent any U.S.
interference it's likely that trade deficit would have increased, if
anything, to feed Japan's war effort. From a strict making-money
point of view, the thing to do would be to let Japan grab what it
could- but the political consequence would have been accepting
Japanese hegemony in Eastern Asia, which was unacceptable to the U.S.
There are more things on heaven and Earth than are dreamt of in
economics texts.

-JTD

Wait a second ...

This ahistorical drivel needs to be corrected, and fast.

WW2 wasn't simply a clash of Empire.

Despite the best efforts of various revisionsists, the reality was
that WW2 pitted various democracies (in spite of all the imperfections
of each) against totalitarian regimes that posited racial superiority
as validation of their claims.

snip

I think we may be in violent agreement here. :-)

The point I was trying to make was that wars happen for many, many
reasons, and that national leaders have to consider many, many
different dimensions when they're making decisions. Reducing the
entire thing to economics, as the poster I was initially replying to
did, is a dangerous oversimplification. All I was doing with that
part of my post is illustrating my point by looking at *one* of the
other dimensions that led to war between the U.S. and the Japanese
Empire in the Pacific. I did not mean to suggest that there weren't
any others, or that politics alone could explain the war any more than
economics could, or that the Pacific War was a "clash of Empire".
(For one thing, it's a bit hard to have a "clash of Empire" when one
party is in the process of giving up its empire in the area, as the
U.S. was doing at the time WWII kicked off.) There are a lot of other
dimensions that I could have picked, and many more if I wanted to look
at the Japanese decision to attack the U.S. I was just making a point
about the causes of war in general, and the dangers of looking at one
particular factor as the end all and be all.

As a side note, I would agree with you that anyone who says the U.S.
and Japan were ideologically equivalent at the time simply hasn't done
the reading.

-JTD

OK, thanks for the clarification.

My WW2 reading was buttressed by my Father's experience (DEs and Subs
in the Pacific).

Hats off to him, then. You don't hear nearly enough about what a
crucial difference the "Silent Service" made during the war years.
Have you read Blair's _Silent Victory_? It's probably the best single
history of U.S. sub operations in the Pacific during WWII, and if you
haven't it's well worth the read. Just got reprinted a few years
back, so you can even get a copy without promising someone your
firstborn son.

-JTD

On Feb 25, 5:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
" wrote :

On Feb 25, 2:30 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
" wrote
innews:aa1f5080-a55c-40e0-954a-647c765d1565

@u10g2000prn.googlegroups.c



om:

On Feb 25, 1:15 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
news:050125fe-1edc-4441-
:

That's a case of too much power, not enough brains.
1% of those in control, say we must build 1000's of
ICBM's because the other are guys are.
Yet, 99% of the people on both sides have not motive
or desire to harm the other guys, apart from being
told they should.

What bout fuedin'?

Bertie

Now that's jes plain fun...

You reckin?

bertie

A yup -- I'm in Pennsylucky -- we knows all abouts feudin'!

Pennsylucky? OK...

Lucky iffin you don't get shot by a stray 30-06, ya mean!

Bertie

I LOVE my 30-06... best all around cartridge, ever.

Except for 105mm. No that will end a fued, right quick!

Dan