< where in the past they spent a lot of money domestically on the war and spurred innovation etc.>
Ah, the old 'spinoff' argument for war. Invent a Tomahawk cruise missile with navigation and spin it off to aircraft and that's better, for some obscure reason, than simply doing it for aircraft in the first place.
When the destruction happens elsewhere, that used to be okay, because it meant mainly that the enemy tribe's guys were killed, the women became part of the tribe and the land was taken over. So, economically, it was great for the winning tribe. It was of course vital to have lots of babies, who could grow up to be fighters to take over the neighbouring tribes.
That was then.
Now, we have global trade, no tribes by DNA [more or less] and 'taking over' has not got much meaning or purpose.
Sure, taking over Saudi Arabia and killing all the people there would be good for Saddam's profits, but most value isn't in captured or found resouces these days, as proven by Japan, Korea, Singapore, Hong Kong, Luxembourg and many other places and all cities.
The world has changed from our tribal chimpoid antecedents' way of genocidal alpha male dominance. There are still some throwbacks.
If something is good to invent, the best way to do it is work directly on the idea and develop the benefits, not work on something destructive then try to switch the technology to something actually useful.
Mqurice |
