WWI

[bush_cheney2004]

The Iraq war cost $2 trillion, and after veterans' benefits are paid, it will end up costing significantly more. The conflict didn't accelerate R&D investment by +$2 trillion.

Wrong comparison....the defense R&D investment occurred before the "Iraq War". GPS, tilt-rotor aircraft, laser guided munitions, robotics, secure data links, UAVs/UCAVs, etc. Do you think the Americans spent billions on GPS satellites so you could follow a map in your car ?

Edited August 7, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Boges]

Wrong comparison....the defense R&D investment occurred before the "Iraq War". GPS, tilt-rotor aircraft, laser guided munitions, robotics, secure data links, UAVs/UCAVs, etc. Do you think the Americans spent billions on GPS satellites so you could follow a map in your car ?

Then that's Cold War R&D. The GPS Smartbombs and Stealth technology were phenomena first seen in the first Gulf War developed in the 80's

The West always needs a boogeyman. They have one in Fundamentalist Islam but they don't need to be fought the same way.

The problem with the US is that it doesn't need to spend what it does on defence anymore. It's forced too because many states rely on the military contracts they have. It's actually corporate welfare at its finest. The Feds can't even pass legislation to shut down nuclear silos because politicians in those states want them there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-the-tank-the-army-says-it-doesnt-need-it-but-industry-wants-to-keep-building-it/2014/01/31/c11e5ee0-60f0-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.html

http://www.cnet.com/news/john-oliver-why-do-floppy-disks-control-nuclear-weapons/

Edited August 7, 2014 by Boges

[Moonbox]

Wrong comparison....the defense R&D investment occurred before the "Iraq War". GPS, tilt-rotor aircraft, laser guided munitions, robotics, secure data links, UAVs/UCAVs, etc. Do you think the Americans spent billions on GPS satellites so you could follow a map in your car ?

The relatively painless (and much cheaper) Desert Storm campaigns may have expedited some new technologies, but it, and subsequent campaigns, certainly don't make up for the $2 trillion spent on Iraq, or the estimated $4-6 Trillion that the combined Iraq/Afghanistan wars will end up costing after veteran benefits etc are included. These aren't 'wrong' comparisons. You can't cherry pick your wars.

[bush_cheney2004]

The relatively painless (and much cheaper) Desert Storm campaigns may have expedited some new technologies, but it, and subsequent campaigns, certainly don't make up for the $2 trillion spent on Iraq, or the estimated $4-6 Trillion that the combined Iraq/Afghanistan wars will end up costing after veteran benefits etc are included. These aren't 'wrong' comparisons. You can't cherry pick your wars.

I'm not sure what argument you are making...that $2 trillion would have been saved to have less defense R&D ? Much of the Iraq war costs would have still been expended for a peacetime military, benefits, etc., anyway. It is precisely because we can't cherry pick wars that R&D investment is constantly being expended at DoD, universities, and engineering firms.

[Derek 2.0]

It is precisely because we can't cherry pick wars that R&D investment is constantly being expended at DoD, universities, and engineering firms.

Exactly and the nature of defense research and development has ensured that many of these programs have spanned the second Iraq war…….Some have been refocused, some altered and some dropped, but defense R&D (and delivery) is clearly a long game.

[bush_cheney2004]

Getting back to WW1, improved medical triage practices were a direct result of changes made by French doctors in field hospitals. Stabilization and transport of injured soldiers steadily improved through the 20th century, benefiting such practices for the general population back home. We think nothing now of that "golden hour" for saving a life, but that idea came out of WW1.

[Boges]

Getting back to WW1, improved medical triage practices were a direct result of changes made by French doctors in field hospitals. Stabilization and transport of injured soldiers steadily improved through the 20th century, benefiting such practices for the general population back home. We think nothing now of that "golden hour" for saving a life, but that idea came out of WW1.

World War One is also blamed for incubating the Spanish Flu that killed one in 20 people on Earth. Sooooo there's that.

[PIK]

Go walk in any forest in Canada. You will see at least 20 species of trees living aside one another: birches, pines, maples. (In the south, closer to the equator, forests have even more tree varieties.)

====

Let me make my point more clear: "National self-determination", "Nation-states", "Single-culture states", "single-species forests" are not sustainable concepts. A forest of a single species of pine is not sustainable. Why?

Trees grow, well, in various places. A maple tree is likely to invade a forest of pines.

Until the unpopular poplar take over.Nice try. Give trees guns and see what happens.

[Moonbox]

I'm not sure what argument you are making...that $2 trillion would have been saved to have less defense R&D?

That the research and innovations resulting from the Iraq/Afghanistan conflicts were insignificant compared to the trillions spent on these 'wars'.

Much of the Iraq war costs would have still been expended for a peacetime military, benefits, etc., anyway. It is precisely because we can't cherry pick wars that R&D investment is constantly being expended at DoD, universities, and engineering firms.

Much? There's a vague term. Seeing as though deployed soldiers would have been receiving hazard pay and re-enlistment bonuses, and seeing as though these benefits AND base pay are tax-free during deployment, there was a large spike in personnel costs during the conflicts. The longer and repeated tours of duty and re-enlistments will also see veteran benefit payments in the future correspondingly increase, and then there are the casualty-related costs to add on as well. Similarly, logistical costs skyrocket for deployed units, as you need to ship food, fuel, ammunition, ordnance, spare parts etc to the other side of the world, as well as maintain and replace equipment that gets damaged. The cost of an actively engaged military is much, much higher than one on base at home or in reserve.

[Moonbox]

More generally, Moonbox, you wonder about an existential question: why are there wars? Why did WWI occur?

I don't wonder why there are wars, although I don't always think they're great ideas.

Here's my answer: I can understand why you wonder why there's a war in Gaza now. {Israel lives in a tough neighbourhood, and Hamas are like the Hell's Angels. I happen to live near a Montreal police station, and I'm happy to pay my property taxes.

I don't wonder why there's a war in Gaza now, and I'm very pro-Israel on the matter. I think the comparison of Hamas and the Hell's Angels is completely off-base though and a pretty poor analogy. I don't really think an explanation why is needed.

[bush_cheney2004]

....The cost of an actively engaged military is much, much higher than one on base at home or in reserve.

Sure....but the U.S. DoD has an annual budget that is recurring over decades, war or not, quickly dwarfing the costs of a single intervention like Iraq, which was just a blip of Congressional supplementals for a mere 8 years (about $800 billion).

Compare that to U.S. costs for WW1.....about 15% of total U.S. GDP at the time.

Edited August 7, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Sure....but the U.S. DoD has an annual budget that is recurring over decades, war or not

"war or not" spending is Hell!

[Moonbox]

Sure....but the U.S. DoD has an annual budget that is recurring over decades, war or not, quickly dwarfing the costs of a single intervention like Iraq, which was just a blip of Congressional supplementals for a mere 8 years (about $800 billion).

$800B is not a blip of Congressional spending, even for the US. That's the equivalent of a ~15% annual increase over that 8 year period, for a (relatively) small and isolated conflict. Either way, we didn't/haven't/won't see $800B worth of innovations from the Iraq war - not by a long shot.

[bush_cheney2004]

$800 billion over 8 years averages only $100 billion per year...that is a blip to the U.S. budget and recent record deficit spending. Congress authorized nearly that much for TARP in one year, later trimmed down to $475 billion. Those are blips to the total U.S. federal budget. It's not Canada !

Got even more innovation out of the Cold War, which cost TRILLIONS.

[August1991]

Until the unpopular poplar take over.Nice try. Give trees guns and see what happens.

My point is clear: in a sustainable forest, different trees have to live together.

===

To return to the OP, the cause of WWI is one question. The political response another.

Other than wondering how Europe fell into August 1914 (accidents happen), I wonder how smart people bungle a response to crisis. I'm inclined to think that Wilson, Versailles and self-determination utterly bungled the problem. Versailles 1919 is a lesson in humility for State power. It is similar to the US Fed facing its first crisis in 1929: classic fail.

=====

Before 1914, central Europe was civilized: like Montreal or Bombay in 2014, unilingual people of different languages, religions lived together in Lemberg in 1914.

Nowadays, Lemberg is Lviv - and no one there speaks Polish or German. There are no Jews. It's as if Montreal had no anglophones, and no Protestants.

This matters to me because I understand what Lemberg once was, and how WWI (Versailles, Wilson, Hitler etc) changed/bungled it. IMV, progessives such as Hitler, Stalin and Wilson cause great harm to ordinary people.

[bTW like Montreal, there is stll a "Jewish" hospital in Lviv, with the Star of David embedded in its tower. It's a reminder of Lemberg's civilised, multicultural, multilingual past.]

Edited August 9, 2014 by August1991

[Wilber]

It's interesting that in retrospect, Churchill thought the U S entering the war was a bad thing. If they hadn't, he thought the parties would have continued the stalemate and been forced to reach a treaty that both could live with and Hitler would have been an unknown.

[jbg]

It's interesting that in retrospect, Churchill thought the U S entering the war was a bad thing. If they hadn't, he thought the parties would have continued the stalemate and been forced to reach a treaty that both could live with and Hitler would have been an unknown.

I am not big on ahistorical reasoning. Germany's Kaiser still may have abdicated and a country not used to debating major issues still may have wound up with extremists battling it out in the streets. That had as much to do with Hitler's rise as Versailles.

[Wilber]

I am not big on ahistorical reasoning. Germany's Kaiser still may have abdicated and a country not used to debating major issues still may have wound up with extremists battling it out in the streets. That had as much to do with Hitler's rise as Versailles.

Possibly but the heavy penalties Versailles put on Germany plus the myth that the army hadn't really lost the war but was sabotaged by the civil population, particularly the Jews were major factors in the unrest and Hitlers ability to manipulate public opinion.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Wilber

[August1991]

It's interesting that in retrospect, Churchill thought the U S entering the war was a bad thing. If they hadn't, he thought the parties would have continued the stalemate and been forced to reach a treaty that both could live with and Hitler would have been an unknown.

Churchill believed in the supremacy of Britain, and the English-speaking people. (Peu importe... )

In retrospect, far more is at stake.

=====

I will give credit to Churchill and the British class-system for this: Churchill - a conservative - recognized quickly Hitler for what he was: a fraud. Many other naive leftist individuals at the time thought Hitler was "progressive".

This is one reason that I am a conservative, and I favour Harper.

Edited August 9, 2014 by August1991

[jbg]

Possibly but the heavy penalties Versailles put on Germany plus the myth that the army hadn't really lost the war but was sabotaged by the civil population, particularly the Jews were major factors in the unrest and Hitlers ability to manipulate public opinion.

I hear you.

But when a monarchy suddenly crumbles, and extremist mobs start fighting it out, it's hard for it to end well. Witness the Arab world after the deposition of the Kings in Libya, Egypt et. al.

[eyeball]

I will give credit to Churchill and the British class-system for this: Churchill - a conservative - recognized quickly Hitler for what he was: a fraud. Many other naive leftist individuals at the time thought Hitler was "progressive".

Christ on a stick what a pile of crap.

So, if this true, why was it that political representatives of wealthy German industrialists cross the floor to give Hitler the majority he needed to rise to power? Leftists? Like I said, Christ on a stick what a pile of crap.

Edited August 9, 2014 by eyeball

[Wilber]

I hear you.

But when a monarchy suddenly crumbles, and extremist mobs start fighting it out, it's hard for it to end well. Witness the Arab world after the deposition of the Kings in Libya, Egypt et. al.

That's the thing, if a proper armistice and treaty acceptable to both parities had been worked out, there would have been no need for the unrest or the monarchy to crumble. The allies learned this in didn't repeat the mistake after WWII. Instead of imposing crippling conditions on the defeated parties, they helped rebuild their economies and in Japan's case, allowed them to keep their Emperor. The end result being allies instead of enemies.

[Wilber]

Christ on a stick what a pile of crap.

So, if this true, why was it that political representatives of wealthy German industrialists cross the floor to give Hitler the majority he needed to rise to power? Leftists? Like I said, Christ on a stick what a pile of crap.

I think he was referring to the British government but you make a good point. Chamberlain headed a Conservative government. Socialists and Nazis were bitter enemies.

Edited August 9, 2014 by Wilber

[jbg]

That's the thing, if a proper armistice and treaty acceptable to both parities had been worked out, there would have been no need for the unrest or the monarchy to crumble. The allies learned this in didn't repeat the mistake after WWII. Instead of imposing crippling conditions on the defeated parties, they helped rebuild their economies and in Japan's case, allowed them to keep their Emperor. The end result being allies instead of enemies.

Kaiser Wilhelm and the Hapsburghs abdicated long before Versailles.

In fact Germany got relief from much of the reparation obligations. Versailles was not the reason that the Weimar Republic imploded almost immediately.

Edited August 10, 2014 by jbg

[Moonbox]

Kaiser Wilhelm and the Hapsburghs abdicated long before Versailles.

In fact Germany got relief from much of the reparation obligations. Versailles was not the reason that the Weimar Republic imploded almost immediately.

Versailles' reparations certainly contributed to it, as Germany's post-WW1 economy was a complete shambles. Hyperinflation devalued their currency to worthlessness (almost literally) in the early-mid 20's and Germany's already struggling economy was crushed by the recession. When unemployment hits 30% and you can't feed your kids, you'll listen to anything. Hitler had an easy answer for all of it...