4 ms·

> This has been the most peaceful period in history. Not really. Not for the middle east anyway. Although I see your point about having nuclear weapons resul

by hasenj 16y ago

> This has been the most peaceful period in history. Not really. Not for the middle east anyway. Although I see your point about having nuclear weapons resulting in less wars. The USA and USSR never actually got in a direct war. OTOH, if just one reckless leader decides to use nukes, just for once, it will probably start an endless nuclear war. It's a double edged sword. Wonder what would happen if every country in the middle east had them, or say, major countries (Turkey, and some Arab country).

salemh 16y ago
No major powers have gone to war however. Stalemates of nuclear war and the lack of conventional warfare between capitalistic countries equates to this weird period in history that does not involve actual military expansion. Economic expansion is enough :D http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-33---(BLITZ)-Old-School-Toughness/%20history-lifecycles-empire http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-33---(BLITZ... An interesting look at "Belgium should not be a country" meaning, pre-1950's, Belgium would be snapped up by an expanding imperialistic country. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm Lists of Democracies going to war..though I would differentiate this between "capitalistic" countries and war. Points and counter-points: http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/205/01/20060806nb_cheap_wars_tikkun_web.htm http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/205/01/20060806nb_cheap_wars_tikk...
- foljs 16y ago
  <b>No major powers have gone to war however. Stalemates of nuclear war and the lack of conventional warfare between capitalistic countries equates to this weird period in history that does not involve actual military expansion. Economic expansion is enough :D</b> Economic expansion built upon cheap resources for the industries of large powers and obedient world markets. I.e in war, coups, protectorates, old-style and new-style colonization. And, when everything else fails, war between major powers themselves. The same fallacies ("economic expansion will replace war") were uttered in late 19th century, we saw how that turned out. Btw, the market was no less global then.

by hasenj 16y ago

salemh 16y ago

No major powers have gone to war however. Stalemates of nuclear war and the lack of conventional warfare between capitalistic countries equates to this weird period in history that does not involve actual military expansion. Economic expansion is enough :D http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-33---(BLITZ)-Old-School-Toughness/%20history-lifecycles-empire http://www.dancarlin.com/disp.php/hharchive/Show-33---(BLITZ... An interesting look at "Belgium should not be a country" meaning, pre-1950's, Belgium would be snapped up by an expanding imperialistic country. http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/demowar.htm Lists of Democracies going to war..though I would differentiate this between "capitalistic" countries and war. Points and counter-points: http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/205/01/20060806nb_cheap_wars_tikkun_web.htm http://bnarchives.yorku.ca/205/01/20060806nb_cheap_wars_tikk...

foljs 16y ago
<b>No major powers have gone to war however. Stalemates of nuclear war and the lack of conventional warfare between capitalistic countries equates to this weird period in history that does not involve actual military expansion. Economic expansion is enough :D</b> Economic expansion built upon cheap resources for the industries of large powers and obedient world markets. I.e in war, coups, protectorates, old-style and new-style colonization. And, when everything else fails, war between major powers themselves. The same fallacies ("economic expansion will replace war") were uttered in late 19th century, we saw how that turned out. Btw, the market was no less global then.