91–100 of 117 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first 50 years of that peace was Europe being split between two nuclear superpowers. So the “peace” (more like a standoff) isn’t entirely our (European) fault.
France and the UK still maintain nuclear arsenals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economists were saying that about the interconnected economies of Europe prior to WWII. War is declared by human politicians in an instant. It is not required to be rational any more than human behavior is in general.
On the other hand, it's been what... 80 years since a conflict between continental European nations. Has there ever been a gap that long in recorded history?
Globalization is a part of it, but I don't think it's sufficient in itself to keep the peace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Germans did suffer terribly from shortages, particularly of petroleum, during the war. In fact, one could argue fairly well that the shortage of petroleum ensured their defeat. Their inability to produce high octane gasoline was also instrumental in the defeat of the Luftwaffe, as it meant their aircraft could not perform up to the level of the Allied aircraft. The Japanese in WW2 also failed to secure a supply o…
Yes, there's no doubt it was a major problem for Axis nations. However, it didn't prevent them from going to war. In the case of the Japanese one could argue securing their own source of petroleum and other resources was a major driving factor behind their expansionist policy.
The interesting thing about a future modern war, however, is that modern weapons are too expensive and take too long to produce, so it'll be fought with whatever is in stock and will be over before supply lines matter. I hope we never find out if that is true or not the hard way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Economists were saying that about the interconnected economies of Europe prior to WWII. War is declared by human politicians in an instant. It is not required to be rational any more than human behavior is in general.
On the other hand, it's been what... 80 years since a conflict between continental European nations. Has there ever been a gap that long in recorded history?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, it's been what... 80 years since a conflict between continental European nations. Has there ever been a gap that long in recorded history?
I think the last 80 years have been the most peaceful in recorded human history in spite of, or perhaps because of the constant threat of nuclear Armageddon. Globalization is a part of it, but I don't think it's sufficient in itself to keep the peace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, there's no doubt it was a major problem for Axis nations. However, it didn't prevent them from going to war. In the case of the Japanese one could argue securing their own source of petroleum and other resources was a major driving factor behind their expansionist policy.
On the other side, the US supplied Britain with all the arms, food and gas they needed. The whole point of the U-Boot campaign was to cut that off, which would have caused the defeat of Britain. The interesting thing about a future modern war, however, is that modern weapons are too expensive and take too long to produce, so it'll be fought with whatever is in stock and will be over before supply lines matter. I hope…
If all you have left to fight with is improvised weapons, then it continues with that.
I would argue that very expensive, complex machines are the Tiger tank mistake all over again. Mechanically unreliable because of the complexity, but when it worked it was completely unmatched. One Tiger tank defeated 50 Russian tanks in the battle of Kursk, if I remember correctly.
But the cheaper, mass produced tanks of the allies won out because they could be fielded in much greater numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, it's been what... 80 years since a conflict between continental European nations. Has there ever been a gap that long in recorded history?
Sigh. If only. Do you know what happened with Crimea in 2014 - and what was going on in Debaltsevo, Donetsk region, Ukraine, in February 2015?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other side, the US supplied Britain with all the arms, food and gas they needed. The whole point of the U-Boot campaign was to cut that off, which would have caused the defeat of Britain. The interesting thing about a future modern war, however, is that modern weapons are too expensive and take too long to produce, so it'll be fought with whatever is in stock and will be over before supply lines matter. I hope…
I'm not sure I believe that. War doesn't usually end until one side surrenders in a way the other side is willing to accept. If all you have left to fight with is improvised weapons, then it continues with that. I would argue that very expensive, complex machines are the Tiger tank mistake all over again. Mechanically unreliable because of the complexity, but when it worked it was completely unmatched. One Tiger tank…
and see how well (or poorly) that work. Look at afganistan. Look at iraq. Insurgents continue to fight, and the usa just cannot completely win.
A war is won on ideology, not weapons.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand, it's been what... 80 years since a conflict between continental European nations. Has there ever been a gap that long in recorded history?
Sigh. If only. Do you know what happened with Crimea in 2014 - and what was going on in Debaltsevo, Donetsk region, Ukraine, in February 2015?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How long would it take to figure out how to run a steel mill from (more or less) first principles? That is, if you're a country that has zero steel mills and zero people who have worked at one, and for some out-of-game reason (like a global pandemic) you can't travel to one, but you know that they exist, you have access to books, and perhaps you can interview people, how long will it take to build an acceptable-quali…
The metal (steel, aluminum, etc) used in new cars didn't exist 10 years ago. From first principles, making steel is easy. Making stainless steel, figuring out when to add additives and what those additives should be, is harder. Doing it at scale, in quantity, cheaply, and safely, taking all aspects into consideration is dramatically harder, and if you dump the expertise now, and then have to restart from first princi…
you'd imagine they, upon acquiring said expertise, would write it down so that it is permanently available to others. What happens to the expertise if the person with it dies in an accident or old age?