> Is it an axiom of civilization that destruction always costs less than construction? Defense and Offense vary in power over time. In the middle ages, it was

> Is it an axiom of civilization that destruction always costs less than construction? Defense and Offense vary in power over time. In the middle ages, it was possible to construct a suit of armor that effectively made you invulnerable. A small force of armored men-at-arms could defeat a much larger force of peasants because the peasants just wouldn't be able to injure them effectively. Additionally, castles and other fortifications increased the power of defense. Firearms swung the advantage to the attackers - giving conscripts a way to pierce plate mail, and cannoneers a way to take down castle walls. Barbed wire and machine guns swung the balance of power back towards the defenders. Largely static trench warfare was the result; even with overwhelming artillery fire, it was extremely difficult for determined attackers to mount an effective assault. Stormtrooper tactics, tanks, and airplanes all boosted the power of offense making deep penetrations into enemy lines a routine occurrence in WWII. Nuclear weapons were initially a massive boost to offense when only the US had them. But with the advent of MAD they are firmly a tool of defense[1]. Even with modern weapons at their disposal, economic conditions can also affect the battlefield - the Ukraine war is very much a defense-centric war. This is partially because of the potency of SAMs and partly because Ukraine is starved of artillery munitions. Among many other reasons. --- 1. At least until they're next used in anger. No one really knows how MAD will actually play out. Hopefully no one has to find out.