3 ms·
It is almost certain that the old appetites are still there. The big changes are probably that democracies tend to be less expansionist (democracies don't like
by another-one-off 12y ago
It is almost certain that the old appetites are still there. The big changes are probably that democracies tend to be less expansionist (democracies don't like needless wars, voters die) and that all the countries that aren't the US basically imploded in World War II.
Most of history isn't a great guide for what happens next because of technology changes. Up until "recently" wars were won by logistics, numbers and training. In the modern age, logistics requires a very complicated industrial system capable of producing, eg, nuclear weapons and satellites. So far, only the US has pulled this off and only the EU has come close to (maybe they have managed as well, I don't know).
Life may get more tense when a new challenger to the US emerges. Maybe China.
- zanny 12y agoSo someone else has nukes and satellites, then what? Are they seriously going to engage in mutually assured destruction trying to go to war with America? That is the primary reason why I find all the bullshit excuses about having a trillion dollar annual military in the US disgusting - no nation will ever again attempt to invade American soil, because to do so would be to at least end their nation and at most end life on the planet.
- 100timesthis 12y agothat's what people were saying after WWI.
- zanny 12y agoAnd then we dropped two atomic bombs on the next guys to attack American soil. Now everyone knows, one, what nuclear arms are capable of, and two, that the US will use them.
- 100timesthis 12y agosure you can drop bombs but, one, that doesn't mean that US will not get hurt, two, you imply that war will be a traditional one, where, for example, it's clear who the enemy is. My point is that people should not exclude the possibility of a war in the west