Rational? The CIA estimates global military expenditures in 2007 as 1,200,000,000,000 dollars. The Stockholm Institute for Peace Research says 1,158,000,000,000. That is only the strict expenditure, bnot counting the loss of productive labour to humanity from employing people in the military or the costs caused by armed conflict. The RC claims 2,255,000 active troops, the USA has 1,426,000, India about the same number, Russia 1,200,000, North Korea about 1,100,000, and 40 more countries number over 100,000 active troops. This is not counting paramilitary forces or civilians employed in the arms industry or military support. Even if you assume that humanity has no other pressing needs, I'd much rather have had a manned Mars mission for that kind of cash.
I wonder if Soviet Union felt people in Red Army in june 1941 could be better employed elsewhere. Or if Spanish though it would be better if Cortez would remain pig farmer.
I'm pretty sure the Wehrmacht could have been better employed ion 41. Or 39, for that matter. And there aren't several million people in Mexico any more wjho might have preferred Cortez to stay home. A few Spaniards buried there, too, I wager.
Why does everyone always assume that war is rational because other people do it?
Rational? The CIA estimates global military expenditures in 2007 as 1,200,000,000,000 dollars. The Stockholm Institute for Peace Research says 1,158,000,000,000. That is only the strict expenditure, bnot counting the loss of productive labour to humanity from employing people in the military or the costs caused by armed conflict. The RC claims 2,255,000 active troops, the USA has 1,426,000, India about the same number, Russia 1,200,000, North Korea about 1,100,000, and 40 more countries number over 100,000 active troops. This is not counting paramilitary forces or civilians employed in the arms industry or military support. Even if you assume that humanity has no other pressing needs, I'd much rather have had a manned Mars mission for that kind of cash.
I guess Minie rifles ought to have been possible from the very first firearms firing lead bullets, and an army Minie rifles vs. muskets would probably have swept the field. But next year most others would have Minierifles too, and the advantage lost. Percussion vs. flintlocks would probably have had a similar effect.
In the more cultural (but very powerful) field a survival or contunuation of merchant empires like the Hansa might have lead to middle class ruling and general emancipation much before. The Ancien Regimes might be seriously challenged a couple of centuries ahead of the French Revolution.
Imagine Tilly and his 20.000 mercenaries being run over by 100.000 enthusiastic "Hamburger" conscripts under a talented commander who started life as son of a cabinetmaker.
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
Doesn't do much good to be working away on your Mars ship and making neat little piles out of the money saved by eliminating the military if some less noble, but willing and eager, group of wacko shows up with AK's and steals all the money, wrecks the ship just to get the 0.01 grams of gold from the computer chips, enslaves you and lops off your right arm if you protest.
Military forces exist becasue there ARE bad people out there, lots of them. Frequently these bad people become leaders of countries and start to steal from their neighbors. Any other expectation is both counter-intutive and self destructive.
. Or if Spanish though it would be better if Cortez would remain pig farmer.