I can only agree with you on this. The only winners to come out of the occupation of Afghanistan were the companies supplying the military equipment and the contractors on the ground. I heard this was to the tune of $1 trillion.
Over on 'The Great Simplification' podcast, there is an interview with Chuck Watson, previously an adviser to the U.S. government, who describes the concept of 'Risk Homeostatis' in relation to nuclear war. His argument is that people in general downplay the risk in their minds because a nuclear warhead hasn't been used for almost 80 years. We've got away with it so far, despite a few incidents which brought us close. The politicians who were around at the time of the cold war, when scenarios were played out showing the likelihood of all out conflict, are no longer in the game, and the current ones largely don't get it.
Personally, I don't think wars are inevitable, and given our current level of technology we need the imagination to find more evolved ways to deal with our differences. The risks are too great.
Unfortunately, it appears that today's political leaders see war as their responsibility, rather than making a way for peace as their responsibility. Perhaps the ever-increasing ability for wars to be fought using technology, with relatively few boots on the ground, has made the cost of war more attractive for participant nations that are either arming other countries for proxy wars, or decimating other spaces and their inhabitants with superior aircraft, drones etc.
It's something I wondered about many years ago, as the increasing role for remote warfare and even micro-targetting decisions made by computer programmes became apparent. Is it really a war when your enemy doesn't have a chance? It's less of a decision to 'go to war' and more of a decision to decimate another habitated space to whatever extent you decide to do so.
I can only agree with you on this. The only winners to come out of the occupation of Afghanistan were the companies supplying the military equipment and the contractors on the ground. I heard this was to the tune of $1 trillion.
Over on 'The Great Simplification' podcast, there is an interview with Chuck Watson, previously an adviser to the U.S. government, who describes the concept of 'Risk Homeostatis' in relation to nuclear war. His argument is that people in general downplay the risk in their minds because a nuclear warhead hasn't been used for almost 80 years. We've got away with it so far, despite a few incidents which brought us close. The politicians who were around at the time of the cold war, when scenarios were played out showing the likelihood of all out conflict, are no longer in the game, and the current ones largely don't get it.
Personally, I don't think wars are inevitable, and given our current level of technology we need the imagination to find more evolved ways to deal with our differences. The risks are too great.
Unfortunately, it appears that today's political leaders see war as their responsibility, rather than making a way for peace as their responsibility. Perhaps the ever-increasing ability for wars to be fought using technology, with relatively few boots on the ground, has made the cost of war more attractive for participant nations that are either arming other countries for proxy wars, or decimating other spaces and their inhabitants with superior aircraft, drones etc.
It's something I wondered about many years ago, as the increasing role for remote warfare and even micro-targetting decisions made by computer programmes became apparent. Is it really a war when your enemy doesn't have a chance? It's less of a decision to 'go to war' and more of a decision to decimate another habitated space to whatever extent you decide to do so.
If you have the time this podcast episode about how all wars are resource wars is worth a listen. https://open.spotify.com/episode/16sFfUhBnhtOSIbqoiN0IK?si=XL5eHGmsQEWBUhBZm9IiMA
Thank you Tim. About to load up my slow cooker for a nice slow soup ... so will listen while cutting up the vegetables!