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, 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

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

Hi Jeff, studied your post.

On Feb 25, 1:34 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:
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-

Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
serious war is totally genocidal.

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.

From the formation of city states (~5000BC) to the
present, ~7000 years. Each empire believed "Might
is Right", and War = Strength, including economical
but that never happened, otherwise the world would be
unified by force.
The world can be unified but by Benevolent Capitalism,
(according to our simulations).

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.

I read a theory about Spain stealing gold etc. from
America. Spain didn't need to develope a home
based GNP and when the America's gold ran out,
everyone they were purchasing goods from were
far more economically more powerful, because
they had a GNP, Spain had very little.

*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.]

I'm still trying to figure out why somebody attacked
the Taliban, it wasn't my decision.

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?

I claimed war would be a bad business decision,
only nothing is impossible,

-JTD

Regards
Ken

"Ken S. Tucker" wrote in
:

Hi Jeff, studied your post.

On Feb 25, 1:34 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:
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-

Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
serious war is totally genocidal.

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.

From the formation of city states (~5000BC) to the
present, ~7000 years. Each empire believed "Might
is Right", and War = Strength, including economical
but that never happened, otherwise the world would be
unified by force.
The world can be unified but by Benevolent Capitalism,
(according to our simulations).

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.

I read a theory about Spain stealing gold etc. from
America. Spain didn't need to develope a home
based GNP and when the America's gold ran out,
everyone they were purchasing goods from were
far more economically more powerful, because
they had a GNP, Spain had very little.

*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.]

I'm still trying to figure out why somebody attacked
the Taliban, it wasn't my decision.

Yes, you'd have the RCAF flying paper darts if it were up to you ,
though.

Bertie

On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:

Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
serious war is totally genocidal.

50+ Million killed over 8 years is a "sissy fight"?

From the formation of city states (~5000BC) to the
present, ~7000 years. Each empire believed "Might
is Right", and War = Strength, including economical
but that never happened, otherwise the world would be
unified by force.
The world can be unified but by Benevolent Capitalism,
(according to our simulations).


Hunh? Which? SimCity?

I read a theory about Spain stealing gold etc. from
America. Spain didn't need to develope a home
based GNP and when the America's gold ran out,
everyone they were purchasing goods from were
far more economically more powerful, because
they had a GNP, Spain had very little.

So you read something --- that's always a good reason to posit some
unsupported theory on global economics, certainly.

I'm still trying to figure out why somebody attacked
the Taliban, it wasn't my decision.


Regards
Ken

The United States "Attacked the Taliban" and overwhelmed the entire
pathetic country in a matter of weeks. This because the Taliban were
Muslim jihadists who harbored and supported those who attacked us on
September 11th, when 2,974 people died --- 246 on four airplanes.


Dan

On Feb 25, 10:59 pm, "Ken S. Tucker" wrote:
Hi Jeff, studied your post.

On Feb 25, 1:34 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:



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-

Not really WW1 and 2 were sissy fights, historically
serious war is totally genocidal.

I apologize to the group for not snipping this part, but I think it's
sufficiently interesting to watch the entire interplay of this
argument. You're now reduced to arguing that World Wars I and II
weren't all that bad, when in fact they were some of the most
devastating conflicts the human race has ever waged. They weren't
completely genocidal- although World War II came damn close, on some
fronts- but they still killed tens of millions of people and ruined
three of the world's great industrial powers, to the point that two of
them had to be rebuilt by the victors and the other one had to loot
Europe to get back on its feet.

Serious war in the ancient period was not typically genocidal, just
like serious war today- it was fought for objectives that usually did
not include "And kill everyone on the other side". The exceptions,
such as Carthage at the end of the Punic Wars, Genghis Khan, and the
Crusades get a lot of press, but they were just that- exceptions.
Sargon I didn't kill everyone on the other side. Neither did the
Persians, or Alexander, or the Romans in most cases, or the combatants
of the Hundred Years' War, and so on. The "cut off their hands and
sow the fields with salt" treatment makes for good historical reading,
but it *didn't* actually happen that often.


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.

From the formation of city states (~5000BC) to the
present, ~7000 years. Each empire believed "Might
is Right", and War = Strength, including economical
but that never happened, otherwise the world would be
unified by force.

And this proves...what, exactly? Sorry, but as far as I can tell
that's a total non sequieter. What does that have to do with anything
we've been discussing? War's never unified the world by force,
although Alexander got pretty close, but it's done a bang-up job of
fulfilling various countries' objectives of the moment throughout
history. You've yet to present evidence that today is any different.

The world can be unified but by Benevolent Capitalism,
(according to our simulations).

Which ones?

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.

I read a theory about Spain stealing gold etc. from
America. Spain didn't need to develope a home
based GNP and when the America's gold ran out,
everyone they were purchasing goods from were
far more economically more powerful, because
they had a GNP, Spain had very little.

Well, not really. What did happen was that Spain had a money system
based on gold, which up until then had been very rare in Europe, and
then imported a lot of gold from the New World. What followed was a
classic demonstration of "inflation in action" that made Spanish money
almost worthless and wrecked their economy pretty thoroughly. It
didn't help that at about the same time Phillip II of Spain died after
a long reign during which he allowed almost nobody else to actually
make decisions, which paralyzed the Spanish government at a very
inopportune time.

Not really relevant to what I was discussing above, and as I mentioned
above I may have to revise my thesis on war paying for war slightly
after discussions with Dan. Nevertheless, I'd argue that war almost
never actually pays for itself, and that this has been the case for
quite some time.



*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.]

I'm still trying to figure out why somebody attacked
the Taliban, it wasn't my decision.

That's a whole different discussion that I *really* don't want to get
into. It's not really relevant to what we're talking about.


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?

I claimed war would be a bad business decision,
only nothing is impossible,

War is a bad decision from a business point of view. But nation-
states aren't businesses. Thus, the fact that the U.S. and China are
economically interdependent (which was what we were originally
discussing) may make a war between them less likely, but does not rule
it out. Looks like we agree on that.

-JTD

"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