Decline of War

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Itse

Highly, highly debatable.

Most wars in history didn't change much for most people. Most of the time it changed the name of the ruler, if that.

Personally I would argue that science/technology is the greatest agent of change.

(Of course there are many chicken-and-egg situations with war and science.)

Conflict has driven many technological and medical advances.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Conflict has driven many technological and medical advances.

Very much true. Chicken and egg, as I said.

I would argue however, that many huge developments were made unrelated to war, and war is often merely the catalyst for taking wider advantage of existing ideas or developing existing technologies further. For example Einstein did not develop his theories because of war, but their potential for war greatly accelerated the study of related technologies.

I would also say this: many wars did not accelerate the development of technologies or new science, but plenty of important science and technology has been developed unrelated to war.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by peter12

Except that junior officers lead from the front, and have casualty rates on par with enlisted men.

Two points:.

1) So?
2) the ratio of enlisted to officers is anywhere from 5-1 to 10-1, so there are roughly five times as many soldiers selected from the poor and undereducated than from those with agency in society which further illustrates what I am saying.