At an event in North Carolina, Trump addressed the rising tensions in the Middle East and suggested the IDF should attempt to cripple Iran's nuclear program.
It wouldn’t hurt to bring this up the next time someone tells you Trump is an anti-war candidate.
Proxy wars are profitable. Total war really isn’t. Even in history for a war to be profitable, you have to be having the war outside your countries borders. Nukes aren’t profitable, and never will be.
I hear what you are saying about the MIC. I also agree with Eisenhower when he said:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
Ultimately there’s no objective measure of whether “war is profitable”. There’s no objective definition of war. There’s no objective measurement of the “sides” and their profit/loss, much less the nuances of who specifically profits or loses.
But total was is relatively profitable versus being destroyed. And it’s absolutely profitable for a select group of people. Most often it’s similar people on “both sides” that profit.
Profitable for a select group of people, who should be named, shamed, tarred and feathered.
I believe that if you were to do an economic analysis of the total P/L of the entirety of human conflict, the L column would overwhelmingly outweighs the P column, even leaving out all modern warfare, which just ramps up the L side. I say that because one of my econ professors did just that during a class. He published a paper about it, but I have no clue what it was called, it would have been somewhere between '96 and '98 that he published it.
Proxy wars are profitable. Total war really isn’t. Even in history for a war to be profitable, you have to be having the war outside your countries borders. Nukes aren’t profitable, and never will be.
I hear what you are saying about the MIC. I also agree with Eisenhower when he said:
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”
Ultimately there’s no objective measure of whether “war is profitable”. There’s no objective definition of war. There’s no objective measurement of the “sides” and their profit/loss, much less the nuances of who specifically profits or loses.
But total was is relatively profitable versus being destroyed. And it’s absolutely profitable for a select group of people. Most often it’s similar people on “both sides” that profit.
Profitable for a select group of people, who should be named, shamed, tarred and feathered.
I believe that if you were to do an economic analysis of the total P/L of the entirety of human conflict, the L column would overwhelmingly outweighs the P column, even leaving out all modern warfare, which just ramps up the L side. I say that because one of my econ professors did just that during a class. He published a paper about it, but I have no clue what it was called, it would have been somewhere between '96 and '98 that he published it.