|
On April 23 2015 19:04 VelJa wrote:
Well guys
You are fucking missing one point.
War is good/bad for economy ok ok (look for plan marshall in google)
Don't forget all the life taken, the city destroyed, and all this shit.
WW modified our POV on a lot of thing. Stop being autistic and thinking only about the $$$
You could argue, loss of life notwithstanding, that the destruction of infrastructure benefited Europe in the long run.
|
I am not convinced that that is a reasonable point of view.
If it were actually true, why don't we randomly blow up stuff all the time if it beneficial in the long term? So far not a single society has developed that randomly destroys their own stuff regularly, and if it really were a long-term benefit, wouldn't such a society prove to be more "fit" than others and thus prevail?
I think one positive thing WW2 has accomplished is show people just how bad a total, industrialized war is, thus leading to much more sensible political structures in europe to prevent that from ever happening again (here). One can not really say if the same thing would not have happened without the war.
My guess is yes, it seems inevitable that a highly industrialized society with large amounts of free information exchanges would avoid a total war against a similar country, but that is just a guess based of assumptions. I also agree that despite how horrifying they are, nuclear weapons probably helped a lot to prevent the cold war from becoming hot (outside of proxy wars). If the inevitable result of a total war is the utter destruction of both parties, that serves as a great deterrent.
And i don't see a non-total world war as something possible.
|
Qualitative evaluations of history that implicate an allegedly superior and alternative time-line in their analysis are almost always ahistorical.
|
On April 23 2015 20:15 Simberto wrote:
I am not convinced that that is a reasonable point of view.
If it were actually true, why don't we randomly blow up stuff all the time if it beneficial in the long term? So far not a single society has developed that randomly destroys their own stuff regularly, and if it really were a long-term benefit, wouldn't such a society prove to be more "fit" than others and thus prevail?
I think one positive thing WW2 has accomplished is show people just how bad a total, industrialized war is, thus leading to much more sensible political structures in europe to prevent that from ever happening again (here). One can not really say if the same thing would not have happened without the war.
My guess is yes, it seems inevitable that a highly industrialized society with large amounts of free information exchanges would avoid a total war against a similar country, but that is just a guess based of assumptions. I also agree that despite how horrifying they are, nuclear weapons probably helped a lot to prevent the cold war from becoming hot (outside of proxy wars). If the inevitable result of a total war is the utter destruction of both parties, that serves as a great deterrent.
And i don't see a non-total world war as something possible.
It was an incidental opportunity more than anything else, planned demolition doesn't exactly have the same result of course. So if you're Germany and the Allies have eaten the cost of blowing up your road and rail networks to stop you using them and you have to rebuild everything or a fair portion of them. Incidentally you have the added benefit of being able to adjust and update and plan everything out from a comparatively modern perspective rather than using aging infrastructure that you would need to replace anyway.
Also involved as was pointed out, the Marshall Plan offered an option to finance reconstruction in such a fashion that made this actually viable, providing the injection of cash Europe needed to get things going again.
|
On April 22 2015 22:48 fancyClown wrote:
I understand nuclear weapons are an issue, but people have mutual agreements not to use them, just like with biological weapons. So we could have World Wars only with conventional weapons.
Also, war is good for the economy.
That means, World Wars would be good for the global economy.
Anyway, I agree that a proper World War should start in central Europe, my hopes are on a Russian invasion.
The problem with "agreeing" not to use nukes is eventually one side will be losing the war and decide they have no option left but to use the nukes anyway.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On April 23 2015 21:37 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On April 22 2015 22:48 fancyClown wrote:
I understand nuclear weapons are an issue, but people have mutual agreements not to use them, just like with biological weapons. So we could have World Wars only with conventional weapons.
Also, war is good for the economy.
That means, World Wars would be good for the global economy.
Anyway, I agree that a proper World War should start in central Europe, my hopes are on a Russian invasion. The problem with "agreeing" not to use nukes is eventually one side will be losing the war and decide they have no option left but to use the nukes anyway.
Like Nazi Germany had no option but to use their vast stockpile of advanced chemical weapons once they were losing the conventional war?
|
On April 22 2015 22:48 fancyClown wrote:
I understand nuclear weapons are an issue, but people have mutual agreements not to use them, just like with biological weapons. So we could have World Wars only with conventional weapons.
Yeah sure
Just because we sign a paper saying we wont use them
if u ruin half of a country, wtf he cares about a paper ? xD
|
On April 23 2015 21:40 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 21:37 jello_biafra wrote:On April 22 2015 22:48 fancyClown wrote:
I understand nuclear weapons are an issue, but people have mutual agreements not to use them, just like with biological weapons. So we could have World Wars only with conventional weapons.
Also, war is good for the economy.
That means, World Wars would be good for the global economy.
Anyway, I agree that a proper World War should start in central Europe, my hopes are on a Russian invasion. The problem with "agreeing" not to use nukes is eventually one side will be losing the war and decide they have no option left but to use the nukes anyway. Like Nazi Germany had no option but to use their vast stockpile of advanced chemical weapons once they were losing the conventional war?
That vast stockpile of advanced chemical weapons couldn't have wiped nations off the face of the earth, it only would have delayed the inevitable. I'm sure if Hitler had had access to ICBMs he would have launched those bad boys.
On April 23 2015 20:15 Simberto wrote:
I am not convinced that that is a reasonable point of view.
If it were actually true, why don't we randomly blow up stuff all the time if it beneficial in the long term? So far not a single society has developed that randomly destroys their own stuff regularly, and if it really were a long-term benefit, wouldn't such a society prove to be more "fit" than others and thus prevail?
I think one positive thing WW2 has accomplished is show people just how bad a total, industrialized war is, thus leading to much more sensible political structures in europe to prevent that from ever happening again (here). One can not really say if the same thing would not have happened without the war.
My guess is yes, it seems inevitable that a highly industrialized society with large amounts of free information exchanges would avoid a total war against a similar country, but that is just a guess based of assumptions. I also agree that despite how horrifying they are, nuclear weapons probably helped a lot to prevent the cold war from becoming hot (outside of proxy wars). If the inevitable result of a total war is the utter destruction of both parties, that serves as a great deterrent.
And i don't see a non-total world war as something possible.
This is a good point, after completely wrecking the continent at the cost of millions of lives twice within 3 decades Europeans really weren't up for another war.
Another reason is that the world since 1945 hasn't been as multipolar as it was in the first half of the 20th Century, from 1900 onwards you had the established great powers like Britain, France,Germany (although a relative newcomer it was acknowledged as a serious power), Austria-Hungary, Italy ( ) and Russia, and new and rising powers like the USA and Japan. The alliance system between all these countries meant that smaller powers could drag the larger powers into war with each other creating a chain reaction resulting in all out world war. The wars seriously crippled almost all of those countries leaving only the US and Soviet Union as the dominant global powers. When the Cold War got going it would take a lot more than some Archduke getting shot or a single country getting invaded for the major powers to begin a total war, instead there was a serious of proxy wars like Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan when these things happened.
Since the end of the cold war the US has pretty much enjoyed global hegemony but we're possibly now entering an age of multiple powers again with the rise of China, the increasing aggressiveness of Russia, a potential EU superstate, potential South American superstate, India etc, in the future.
|
On April 23 2015 21:40 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2015 21:37 jello_biafra wrote:On April 22 2015 22:48 fancyClown wrote:
I understand nuclear weapons are an issue, but people have mutual agreements not to use them, just like with biological weapons. So we could have World Wars only with conventional weapons.
Also, war is good for the economy.
That means, World Wars would be good for the global economy.
Anyway, I agree that a proper World War should start in central Europe, my hopes are on a Russian invasion. The problem with "agreeing" not to use nukes is eventually one side will be losing the war and decide they have no option left but to use the nukes anyway. Like Nazi Germany had no option but to use their vast stockpile of advanced chemical weapons once they were losing the conventional war?
Different levels of scale. Chemical weapons were an atrocity, like torture and other war crimes. Nukes are literally a reset button. With one weapon you could in a second 180 any conventual combat.
|
OMG! OMG!
Have to vent!
Guess who just got in to the LoTV beta.
Can you guess. Can you huh huh!
|
I don't know. Vladimir Putin?
|
|
|
On April 24 2015 01:19 fruity. wrote:
OMG! OMG!
Have to vent!
Guess who just got in to the LoTV beta.
Can you guess. Can you huh huh!
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On April 24 2015 01:20 fancyClown wrote:
I don't know. Vladimir Putin?
Grandmaster Putin
|
On April 24 2015 04:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:Grandmaster Putin
Kasparov hates Putin, I would love to see them play a game of Chess, what I am saying is I would love to watch Putin get demolished by Kasparov in 14 moves.
|
On April 24 2015 04:50 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 04:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2015 01:20 fancyClown wrote:
I don't know. Vladimir Putin? Grandmaster Putin Kasparov hates Putin, I would love to see them play a game of Chess, what I am saying is I would love to watch Putin get demolished by Kasparov in 14 moves.
Personally, there's a lot of things Id love to watch Kasparov do to Putin. Beating him in chess is just one of them.
|
On April 24 2015 06:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 04:50 ThomasjServo wrote:On April 24 2015 04:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2015 01:20 fancyClown wrote:
I don't know. Vladimir Putin? Grandmaster Putin Kasparov hates Putin, I would love to see them play a game of Chess, what I am saying is I would love to watch Putin get demolished by Kasparov in 14 moves. Personally, there's a lot of things Id love to watch Kasparov do to Putin. Beating him in chess is just one of them.
It would be his last chess game though?
|
Russians take their Chess seriously. Almost as serious as their doto.
|
On April 24 2015 04:50 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 04:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2015 01:20 fancyClown wrote:
I don't know. Vladimir Putin? Grandmaster Putin Kasparov hates Putin, I would love to see them play a game of Chess, what I am saying is I would love to watch Putin get demolished by Kasparov in 14 moves.
I dunno. The guy is a real life Bond villain. They're always freakishly good at chess, right?
|
On April 24 2015 07:39 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2015 04:50 ThomasjServo wrote:On April 24 2015 04:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 24 2015 01:20 fancyClown wrote:
I don't know. Vladimir Putin? Grandmaster Putin Kasparov hates Putin, I would love to see them play a game of Chess, what I am saying is I would love to watch Putin get demolished by Kasparov in 14 moves. I dunno. The guy is a real life Bond villain. They're always freakishly good at chess, right?
If you know how good Garry is at Chess, you'll be shaking in your gambit at the thought of playing him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
