The Angry White Man

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