The Angry White Man

On Feb 25, 5:17 pm, Jeff Dougherty
wrote:

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.


Even the Civil War revolved around the capture of supplies. Jeb Stuart
rode north to find shoes.

Lee hoped to drive the North to sue for peace by attacking the granary
-- the fecund fields of southeastern Pennsylvania.



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?


We (NATO) assumed the Warsaw Pact's entire strategy was based on
seizure of key supplies and production centers. So the answer would
have to be "yes."


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.

I don't think anyone can successfully argue that war pays for itself
in the short or even moderately long run (that goes for the "blood for
oil!" wackos).

But, as England discovered in 1763, winning a war can present
unimaginable opportunities that governments are peculiarly adroit at
squandering.

Dan