4 ms·

I would sooner credit the 35th rule of acquisition ("Peace is good for business") than American foreign policy for the lack of a global conflict.

• mnw21cam 6y ago
  Bad example. It's not to be confused with the 34th rule of acquisition (war is good for business).
• colechristensen 6y ago
  But then what changed between 1900 and 1945? We had two world wars between those years and nothing but small localized wars never between major powers after? Weapons. We developed weapons that could sanitize the planet, and in the case that someone might challenge our intention to actually use them, we developed weapons that ran the spectrum so that war against us would always seem a major losing proposition. The only thing left is insurgency and proxy wars, always carefully enough to not trigger major action. Given that game becoming economically codependent and the world is the best play for the available game, and then indeed “peace is good for business”.
  • brabel 6y ago
    Small localised wars?? Did you know that the Vietnam War had the biggest aerial bombardment in history[1], of all wars? The body count in Vietnam easily exceeded 1 million and may be as high as 4 million[2]. Do you think that's a small, localised conflict? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombing_campaigns_of_the_Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bombing_campaigns_of_t... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
    • colechristensen 6y ago
      Yes, I do. Another war between great powers in 1970 could have had a death toll in hundreds of millions.