Custer Victorious! Oct 25, 2011 16:53:58 GMT -5
Post by strange on Oct 25, 2011 16:53:58 GMT -5
Oct 25, 2011 9:11:39 GMT -5 @brittles said:Strange: Should you ever run for president, please send me a reminder not to vote for you.
Ian: Casualties decrease because of inovation and adaptation in the face of increased lethality. The 125 years or so between Waterloo and World War II saw the armies increasing the amount of battlespace required for maneuver as a direct answer to increased range and accuracy of firepower. The Somme was the icing on the cake. Closely packed lines of men facing observer directed artillery and machine guns met their own version of Waterloo.
By all means, vote for the people who are afraid of big guns, people who only war with smaller countries, and who pay big money for weapons they never use.
Tactics and training have obviously changed, maybe we've gone more Prussian as opposed to regimental, maybe we're not warring on open fields, maybe we've learned better ways to take care of the wounded. All of those are valid points for why casualties are lowering, but the primary glaring fact is that the big countries with better armies and better weapons are afraid to war with each other directly.
WWII was America vs Germany vs England vs Japan vs Russia, etc, etc. Civil War was America vs America, quite equally matched despite what some southerners may say.
In the 1960s, we were afraid of Cuba! We are still on edge by Cuba, a dinky little country just a few miles off of our coast.
The threat of atomic annihilation has frightened the last generations out of their common senses, a hundred years ago we would have never taken crap from any of these countries, no matter how large or how well supplied they may be.