5 ms·

War stopped being immediately profitable (in the pillaging and slavery sense) a long time ago. In the west the Napoleonic wars were the last I know of in which

by pg 18y ago

War stopped being immediately profitable (in the pillaging and slavery sense) a long time ago. In the west the Napoleonic wars were the last I know of in which commanders got rich. And yet the biggest wars were still to come. Which implies immediate profit was not what drove them, and thus war becoming unprofitable will not cause it to stop. I'd argue that the biggest cause of war in the last 200 years has been power struggles between politicians. Sadly I doubt we've seen the last of that.

gills 18y ago
Not to mention the ever-popular "millions of hungry and homeless people whipped into a nationalistic frenzy by sociopathic zealots"...
Retric 18y ago
Japan and Germany gained a lot at the start of WWII, but they failed to quit while they where ahead.
- kingkongrevenge 18y ago
  Japan and Germany were economic basket cases at the start of WWII. They acted out of desperation and probably would have crumbled purely from macroeconomic problems without any outside intervention. Germany had bread riots in the weeks before rolling on Poland. Japan was being crushed by the costs of maintaining the empire they had already built.
  - Retric 18y ago
    Yes, but let's add 1 year to the time line. Poland was quickly crushed and was adding a lot of resources to the German economy. [Edit: I don't know a lot of the details but I think Germany could have consolidated power in Poland and then stooped. I mean the ultimatum was one thing, but they had yet to start fighting and by giving up a little land or trying to stall etc they could have still gained land with little cost. The secret would have been for them to "stop" soon enough.] Germany would have probably failed much like the USSR and for similar reasons, but who knows. Japan - I don't know much about their economy but having industrialized they had a significant advantages. Attacking China was probably a bad idea due to it's size, but there where plenty of local countries they could have absorbed with little difficulty.
  - rsheridan6 18y ago
    >Germany had bread riots in the weeks before rolling on Poland. I've never heard of that.. the closest thing I've heard of was riots by the German minority in Poland. Cite?
- rsheridan6 18y ago
  They only made gains because they were mobilized for war and their enemies weren't. That means they had an advantage for a little while, but they lacked the ability to completely defeat the US, USSR, and UK, so they were bound to be defeated once those three countries converted the full weight of their economies to military purposes. Quitting while they were ahead was not an option, unless by "quitting" you mean "surrender."
LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago
War is immensely profitable today. For the contractors and civilian service-providers who live off the military-industrial complex. It's just that the coffers they're plundering are our national budget and future debt, rather than some combatant nation.
- pg 18y ago
  As a way of funneling public money to one's supporters, starting a war is much more work than the usual peacetime appropriations route. For defense contractors, an arms race is just as good as an actual war.
  - prospero 18y ago
    I'd argue that peacetime appropriations and a true arms race are separated by an order of magnitude. And now that Russia's gone and China's at least a decade out, a straightforward war's the only game in town.
    - pg 18y ago
      You underestimate the military-industrial complex. All you need to drive appropriations is some form of fear. Iran or China or "terrorists" will do fine. In some cases unsophisticated opponents are better. If eggheads argue your expensive missile-defense shield won't work, you can argue that it will against crappy missiles launched by Iran.
      - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
        War profiteering blows away peacetime defense systems. The post 2001 defense spending boom has dwarfed the cold war at minting billionaires. Vietnam also produced stupendous profits that were not matched by the 80s spending surge.
        hugh 18y ago
        The post 2001 defense spending boom has dwarfed the cold war at minting billionaires. Really? I haven't heard of that many people becoming billionaires off the defense industry, given that it's dominated by giant decades-old conglomerates. But then again, maybe I haven't been paying attention. Got some names for me?
kingkongrevenge 18y ago
> the biggest cause of war in the last 200 years has been power struggles between politicians Putting it this way ignores the very real popular backing the politicians have usually had. The zeitgeist swings towards militarism and then the politicians follow their cue, not the other way around. It's deep in human nature. Wars usually happen in the context of declining living standards. When peoples perceive a shrinking pie they suddenly become very willing to explore military options.
- bokonist 18y ago
  I'm increasingly coming to believe that the worst wars - French Revolution Wars, US Civil War, World War I and World War II - were caused by the rise of universal suffrage. The decline of war is a result of the United States establishing a hegemony over the democratic part of the world.
ph0rque 18y ago
> I'd argue that the biggest cause of war in the last 200 years has been power struggles between politicians. Sadly I doubt we've seen the last of that. Maybe we can have them duke it out in second life or something :-).
uuilly 18y ago
Your argument rests on the notion that politicians are not representative of their cultures. Clausewitz defined war as politics by another means, but he never said politics is independent of culture. Whether intentionally or not, a country's culture and value system gives rise to it's political system which in turn gives rise to it's foreign policy. I would argue that the major wars are the result of incompatible value systems growing into each other. When one culture values something enough to die for it, and the other culture despises that thing and is willing to die to prevent it, there is not much that can be done. It's like icebergs colliding. The most deft political maneuvering will not stop two immovable forces from bearing down on one another. The Confederacy was a largely grass roots movement. It did not rise out of a squabble between Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. They died in enormous numbers because they believed that their economic future depended on slavery. Southern farmers risked their lives and livelihood to quarter Confederate soldiers and pass them intelligence on Union positions. It was not a political squabble that caused this. It was a deeply held belief that they were right and the other was wrong. The Bolsheviks were disgusted with the ruling order and millions laid down their lives to change it. Sure Lenin was a clever old dog but it's not like he created something that wasn't already there. He merely capitalized on existing forces. Whether they knew it or not a the time the Russians chose the Soviet Union. Perhaps they didn't hold elections but they voted with their blood. Hitler was the most effective manipulator of all but even he did not cause WW-II. German bitterness over WW-I and their sense of racial superiority caused WW-II. Hitler just really understood the German conscious and captured the mood. Hitler would not have been possible in England. I'm reminded of the Sequoia slide show at startup school. "An entrepreneur can't create a wave but he can ride one." I think the same is true of politicians. There cultural forces that form a society are the politicians raw materials. If they are diametrically opposed to those of their neighbors then war is a likely outcome no matter who the politicians are. An economy where grain is distributed from Moscow cannot coexist with an economy where grain is distributed by farmers and businesses. A culture where slaves are as important to them as laptops are to Silicon Valley will not be able to co-exist with a more industrialized culture who no longer needs slaves and simultaneously values human rights. And a culture that believes that they are the master race sent to purge the impure from the world can't co-exist with anyone at all. The politicians are just enablers. Diabolical and brilliant, to be sure, but they can't conjure what they steer.

by pg 18y ago

gills 18y ago

Not to mention the ever-popular "millions of hungry and homeless people whipped into a nationalistic frenzy by sociopathic zealots"...

Retric 18y ago

Japan and Germany gained a lot at the start of WWII, but they failed to quit while they where ahead.

kingkongrevenge 18y ago
Japan and Germany were economic basket cases at the start of WWII. They acted out of desperation and probably would have crumbled purely from macroeconomic problems without any outside intervention. Germany had bread riots in the weeks before rolling on Poland. Japan was being crushed by the costs of maintaining the empire they had already built.
- Retric 18y ago
  Yes, but let's add 1 year to the time line. Poland was quickly crushed and was adding a lot of resources to the German economy. [Edit: I don't know a lot of the details but I think Germany could have consolidated power in Poland and then stooped. I mean the ultimatum was one thing, but they had yet to start fighting and by giving up a little land or trying to stall etc they could have still gained land with little cost. The secret would have been for them to "stop" soon enough.] Germany would have probably failed much like the USSR and for similar reasons, but who knows. Japan - I don't know much about their economy but having industrialized they had a significant advantages. Attacking China was probably a bad idea due to it's size, but there where plenty of local countries they could have absorbed with little difficulty.
- rsheridan6 18y ago
  >Germany had bread riots in the weeks before rolling on Poland. I've never heard of that.. the closest thing I've heard of was riots by the German minority in Poland. Cite?
rsheridan6 18y ago
They only made gains because they were mobilized for war and their enemies weren't. That means they had an advantage for a little while, but they lacked the ability to completely defeat the US, USSR, and UK, so they were bound to be defeated once those three countries converted the full weight of their economies to military purposes. Quitting while they were ahead was not an option, unless by "quitting" you mean "surrender."

LogicHoleFlaw 18y ago

War is immensely profitable today. For the contractors and civilian service-providers who live off the military-industrial complex. It's just that the coffers they're plundering are our national budget and future debt, rather than some combatant nation.

pg 18y ago
As a way of funneling public money to one's supporters, starting a war is much more work than the usual peacetime appropriations route. For defense contractors, an arms race is just as good as an actual war.
- prospero 18y ago
  I'd argue that peacetime appropriations and a true arms race are separated by an order of magnitude. And now that Russia's gone and China's at least a decade out, a straightforward war's the only game in town.
  - pg 18y ago
    You underestimate the military-industrial complex. All you need to drive appropriations is some form of fear. Iran or China or "terrorists" will do fine. In some cases unsophisticated opponents are better. If eggheads argue your expensive missile-defense shield won't work, you can argue that it will against crappy missiles launched by Iran.
    - kingkongrevenge 18y ago
      War profiteering blows away peacetime defense systems. The post 2001 defense spending boom has dwarfed the cold war at minting billionaires. Vietnam also produced stupendous profits that were not matched by the 80s spending surge.
      - hugh 18y ago
        The post 2001 defense spending boom has dwarfed the cold war at minting billionaires. Really? I haven't heard of that many people becoming billionaires off the defense industry, given that it's dominated by giant decades-old conglomerates. But then again, maybe I haven't been paying attention. Got some names for me?

kingkongrevenge 18y ago

> the biggest cause of war in the last 200 years has been power struggles between politicians Putting it this way ignores the very real popular backing the politicians have usually had. The zeitgeist swings towards militarism and then the politicians follow their cue, not the other way around. It's deep in human nature. Wars usually happen in the context of declining living standards. When peoples perceive a shrinking pie they suddenly become very willing to explore military options.

bokonist 18y ago
I'm increasingly coming to believe that the worst wars - French Revolution Wars, US Civil War, World War I and World War II - were caused by the rise of universal suffrage. The decline of war is a result of the United States establishing a hegemony over the democratic part of the world.

ph0rque 18y ago

> I'd argue that the biggest cause of war in the last 200 years has been power struggles between politicians. Sadly I doubt we've seen the last of that. Maybe we can have them duke it out in second life or something :-).

uuilly 18y ago

Your argument rests on the notion that politicians are not representative of their cultures. Clausewitz defined war as politics by another means, but he never said politics is independent of culture. Whether intentionally or not, a country's culture and value system gives rise to it's political system which in turn gives rise to it's foreign policy. I would argue that the major wars are the result of incompatible value systems growing into each other. When one culture values something enough to die for it, and the other culture despises that thing and is willing to die to prevent it, there is not much that can be done. It's like icebergs colliding. The most deft political maneuvering will not stop two immovable forces from bearing down on one another. The Confederacy was a largely grass roots movement. It did not rise out of a squabble between Lincoln and Jefferson Davis. They died in enormous numbers because they believed that their economic future depended on slavery. Southern farmers risked their lives and livelihood to quarter Confederate soldiers and pass them intelligence on Union positions. It was not a political squabble that caused this. It was a deeply held belief that they were right and the other was wrong. The Bolsheviks were disgusted with the ruling order and millions laid down their lives to change it. Sure Lenin was a clever old dog but it's not like he created something that wasn't already there. He merely capitalized on existing forces. Whether they knew it or not a the time the Russians chose the Soviet Union. Perhaps they didn't hold elections but they voted with their blood. Hitler was the most effective manipulator of all but even he did not cause WW-II. German bitterness over WW-I and their sense of racial superiority caused WW-II. Hitler just really understood the German conscious and captured the mood. Hitler would not have been possible in England. I'm reminded of the Sequoia slide show at startup school. "An entrepreneur can't create a wave but he can ride one." I think the same is true of politicians. There cultural forces that form a society are the politicians raw materials. If they are diametrically opposed to those of their neighbors then war is a likely outcome no matter who the politicians are. An economy where grain is distributed from Moscow cannot coexist with an economy where grain is distributed by farmers and businesses. A culture where slaves are as important to them as laptops are to Silicon Valley will not be able to co-exist with a more industrialized culture who no longer needs slaves and simultaneously values human rights. And a culture that believes that they are the master race sent to purge the impure from the world can't co-exist with anyone at all. The politicians are just enablers. Diabolical and brilliant, to be sure, but they can't conjure what they steer.