[justonceokay]

This might have been true before technology but yet again the nerds ruin everything. Now that I think about it, this theory doesn’t really hold past tribalism. The Industrial Revolution is why England could conquer half the planet, not the brutish nature of the English.

Maybe in the future even the drones will have ennui and want to become dancers.

[robertlagrant]

> The Industrial Revolution is why England could conquer half the planet, not the brutish nature of the English

I don't think that quote is about being brutish. The idea is that when times get easy, defence lowers (as why spend on defence?) and eventually someone else who is not living in luxury takes over, if they can reach you. I don't know if it's a valid theory, but I don't think it's about anyone's nature in particular.

[notahacker]

Relatively speaking, the times were a lot easier when the UK was conquering the world than when it wasn't, but times being easy didn't stop it from being effective at conquering the world when it had a tech advantage. Times were pretty easy when it sacrificed a lot of men in two world wars where it didn't have a tech advantage (and could probably have afforded to weasel out) too.

[jahewson]

Furthermore the Industrial Revolution stimulated the need for a trading empire to supply its materials. Nowadays we have global free trade (enforced by the US Navy - yet more technology) so trading empires are unnecessary.

[concordDance]

I often hear this, but other than cotton, what industrial materials needed to be imported?

My understanding is that coal, wood and iron ore were plentiful in England itself.

[inetknght]

Some might argue that the US Navy enforces trade to be more free for some than others.

[cryptophreak]

Technology may be more predictive of conflict abroad than at home. If we faced a land invasion, for example, we would not be able to bomb our way out of it.

[imchillyb]

> If we faced a land invasion, for example, we would not be able to bomb our way out of it.

Why would you state this as if it were fact? It's not true.

Our own generals bombed the most important trade hub of the time, Atlanta, during the civil war.

Bombs are highly effective, and location matters little to their effectiveness or usefullness.

We dropped plenty of bombs in unreachable parts of Afghanistan. Were those effective? Yes, they were. Were those bombs as effective, in that region of uninhabitable tunnels and cliffs, as they would be in an urban setting? No, of course not.

Bombs are still the go-to attack and defense strategy. Bombs reduce the need for boots on the ground. Bombs reduce the enemy's ability to go to ground and hide.

If we faced a land invasion, in the USA, we would absolutely-certainly utilize modern weaponry, including bombs, to displace the enemy.

To say otherwise is to disregard history. To say otherwise is to place hope in pie-in-the-sky feelings and not the data we've accumulated over the last 200 years.

[anigbrowl]

We dropped plenty of bombs in unreachable parts of Afghanistan. Were those effective? Yes, they were

In the short term, yes. In the long term the US eventually gave up and left. Likewise, the US bombed Vietnam heavily, eventually gave up and left. You can't hold territory with bombs.

To say otherwise is to disregard history. To say otherwise is to place hope in pie-in-the-sky feelings and not the data we've accumulated over the last 200 years.

Every military historian will tell you the same thing I just did, and cite examples going back thousands of years - military arson serves the same function as bombing.

[imchillyb]

Military arson is a great example.

Conflagration has been successfully implemented against enemies since, well before, the sentence: '...like a madman hurling firebrands, arrows and death...' was ever uttered.

A firebrand is a stick with a flaming top. The arrows spoken of were tar or pith coated arrows shot inside of fortifications, to set them ablaze. Death referred to potted death. These were clay pots filled with all sorts of flammable and spreading substances. It was known as death because if the goop attached to a human, that human would immolate.

These tactics were highly effective in displacing, removing, and killing enemies. Bombs are orders of magnitude more effective.

The comment and ensuing discussion was about enemies upon the shores of the US, and whether or not the US Military and US Citizenry would utilize bombs on its own lands.

Certainly. Absolutely. Without hesitation.

Bombs work. Bombs work well. Bombs have exceedingly high return value on their production and use, compared to boots. Boots are costly. Bombs... Not as much.