3 ms·
Do you really think all wars are rational, resource-driven pursuits? How about Falklands, what Argentina planned to extract there? Steal the rocks and tax the 3
by varjag 6y ago
Do you really think all wars are rational, resource-driven pursuits? How about Falklands, what Argentina planned to extract there? Steal the rocks and tax the 300 sheep? Or Russia with Crimea, whose ownership value is enormously negative?
All it takes is one moron with delusion of grandeur.
- watwut 6y agoWars are expensive, that is first thing. Second, soldiers need to eat right now and where do you think food used to come from? Army "living off the land" was a thing, because supplying them was difficult and who cares. The land armies passed through used to be pretty destroyed after. > Russia with Crimea, whose ownership value is enormously negative? Russia does not see expansion of own territory as negative value. Also, Russians are very much making changes in Crimea.
- varjag 6y agoUnlike 'seeing', negative economic value is objective. Suffering sanctions for occupying a region that was traditionally heavily subsidised is negative value.
- Mauricebranagh 6y ago1 To distract the population by stirring up nationalism / appealing to "machismo" 2 OIL
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoIndeed, countless wars were started for the most idiotic reasons imaginable, see 'war of the bycket' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Bucket https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Bucket
- appletrotter 6y agoDid you read what you linked to? It says that the war wasn't actually started to due to the bucket, but the taking of a castle. Pretty reasonable cause to start a war I could imagine, back then.