4 ms·

> Like we have prehistoric skeletons with obvious signs of traumatic injury inflicted by tools. No one is arguing that modern technology is the sole or even pr

> Like we have prehistoric skeletons with obvious signs of traumatic injury inflicted by tools. No one is arguing that modern technology is the sole or even principal cause of military deaths. The argument is simply that technology has greatly facilitated the ease and scale. Imagine a world without nuclear weapons, automatic weapons, rockets, and explosives (other than gunpowder). There would still be wars, certainly, but they would be a lot less destructive.

XorNot 7mo ago
The number of casualties from the American civil war was estimated at 700,000 soldiers from both sides. The death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is estimated at about 200,000. Nuclear weapons have killed far fewer people then any other type in history, whereas the musket did some work. And you know, a bunch of Romans with the pinnacle of technology - the sharp thing on a long stick - in the Battle of Carthage collectively had about 100,000 casualties and also demolished a city. And that was one of many battles in many wars. The masses of man and ground into the masses of man in conflict, at scale, at every turn that we've had organized society. We live in a time where casualty scales are actually shockingly low in conflict.
- watwut 7mo ago
  You literally refenced WWII. Which features a peek of people killed in military conflict. And yes, holocaust counts, civilian deaths by soldiers count.
- chihuahua 7mo ago
  Interesting perspective. One could argue that nuclear weapons are among the less harmful things invented, since they killed fewer people than knives, clubs, spears, guns, cars, cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos, coal power plants, and probably a lot of other things. Plus they probably prevent a 3rd world war with killing on the same scale as WW1 and WW2, tens of millions each.
  - AdamN 7mo ago
    Yeah that's part of Nuclear Peace Theory. It's interesting and compelling - but also prone to some major tail risk.
  - 9dev 7mo ago
    They prevent the third world war, until they don’t. Then they will bring mayhem and misery. And with the current lunatics in charge I am not really at ease just because nobody pushed the big red button yet.
  - duskdozer 7mo ago
    >Plus they probably prevent a 3rd world war with killing on the same scale as WW1 and WW2, tens of millions each. Or, they've had no effect, and there hasn't been a "WW3" due to other factors. Or, they've made one more likely, it just hasn't happened yet.
- hackyhacky 7mo ago
  > The death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is estimated at about 200,000. Nice of you to omit the 50 million other civilian casualties in WW2, plus around 20 million military casualties a 5 million prisoners. Nothing in the classical world comes close to that left of destruction.
  - testaccount28 7mo ago
    famously, the bombs were what _ended_ the war.
- vlovich123 7mo ago
  You’re comparing a 4 year bloodbath to 10 minutes and being underimpressed? Also those weapons are several orders of magnitude less powerful than what they’re capable of today… Battle of Carthage was also 3 years and was a siege of a city, so you know… not a lot of places for the people inside to escape. Also took about 20-50k expertly trained Roman soldiers vs a few trained guys in a plane pressing a button. And sibling comment is right. The application of industrialization to the death process in WW2 and similar application of the idea (eg Pol Pot and Stalin) also led to death on an unprecedented scale.
  - nwhnwh 7mo ago
    > You’re comparing a 4 year bloodbath to 10 minutes... Poor me having hard time trying to understand how he didn't notice that by himself.
  - jryle70 7mo ago
    > 4 year bloodbath That caused endless tragedy and trauma. Perhaps the 10 mins terror was the less worse outcome of the two, mode decisive, that ended the war quicker. Who can decide? Wars aren't statistic.
    - watwut 7mo ago
      WWII was not 10min of terror. Those 10min was small part of 5 year long warfare. Which caused endless trage and trauma. So, if you want to make apples to apples comparison, compare it to how many people a small unit killed on 10min.

XorNot 7mo ago

The number of casualties from the American civil war was estimated at 700,000 soldiers from both sides. The death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is estimated at about 200,000. Nuclear weapons have killed far fewer people then any other type in history, whereas the musket did some work. And you know, a bunch of Romans with the pinnacle of technology - the sharp thing on a long stick - in the Battle of Carthage collectively had about 100,000 casualties and also demolished a city. And that was one of many battles in many wars. The masses of man and ground into the masses of man in conflict, at scale, at every turn that we've had organized society. We live in a time where casualty scales are actually shockingly low in conflict.

watwut 7mo ago
You literally refenced WWII. Which features a peek of people killed in military conflict. And yes, holocaust counts, civilian deaths by soldiers count.
chihuahua 7mo ago
Interesting perspective. One could argue that nuclear weapons are among the less harmful things invented, since they killed fewer people than knives, clubs, spears, guns, cars, cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos, coal power plants, and probably a lot of other things. Plus they probably prevent a 3rd world war with killing on the same scale as WW1 and WW2, tens of millions each.
- AdamN 7mo ago
  Yeah that's part of Nuclear Peace Theory. It's interesting and compelling - but also prone to some major tail risk.
- 9dev 7mo ago
  They prevent the third world war, until they don’t. Then they will bring mayhem and misery. And with the current lunatics in charge I am not really at ease just because nobody pushed the big red button yet.
- duskdozer 7mo ago
  >Plus they probably prevent a 3rd world war with killing on the same scale as WW1 and WW2, tens of millions each. Or, they've had no effect, and there hasn't been a "WW3" due to other factors. Or, they've made one more likely, it just hasn't happened yet.
hackyhacky 7mo ago
> The death toll from Hiroshima and Nagasaki is estimated at about 200,000. Nice of you to omit the 50 million other civilian casualties in WW2, plus around 20 million military casualties a 5 million prisoners. Nothing in the classical world comes close to that left of destruction.
- testaccount28 7mo ago
  famously, the bombs were what _ended_ the war.
vlovich123 7mo ago
You’re comparing a 4 year bloodbath to 10 minutes and being underimpressed? Also those weapons are several orders of magnitude less powerful than what they’re capable of today… Battle of Carthage was also 3 years and was a siege of a city, so you know… not a lot of places for the people inside to escape. Also took about 20-50k expertly trained Roman soldiers vs a few trained guys in a plane pressing a button. And sibling comment is right. The application of industrialization to the death process in WW2 and similar application of the idea (eg Pol Pot and Stalin) also led to death on an unprecedented scale.
- nwhnwh 7mo ago
  > You’re comparing a 4 year bloodbath to 10 minutes... Poor me having hard time trying to understand how he didn't notice that by himself.
- jryle70 7mo ago
  > 4 year bloodbath That caused endless tragedy and trauma. Perhaps the 10 mins terror was the less worse outcome of the two, mode decisive, that ended the war quicker. Who can decide? Wars aren't statistic.
  - watwut 7mo ago
    WWII was not 10min of terror. Those 10min was small part of 5 year long warfare. Which caused endless trage and trauma. So, if you want to make apples to apples comparison, compare it to how many people a small unit killed on 10min.