[casey2]

Drones and atomic bombs have prevented more mass murder than they've been used for.

The people doing the most to actually improve material conditions in the third world are constantly poo-pooed by people who profit off these places remaining impoverished.

I think the NRxers are right here you need to go in there and crack skulls. Few will invest in long term skills if they aren't valuable. The simple fact: In these next 10 years Haiti will see more growth than the last 40 years, thanks in large part to this partnership.

[ericmay]

Atomic bombs, probably. Drones? I’m not so sure I’ve heard that specific discussion point before. Why would drones be any different than machine guns or fighter jets?

[casey2]

Whose going to participate in ethnic cleaning (or gangs) when they can be zapped from anywhere?

It's a much larger deterrent

[bawolff]

I feel like that goes both ways. Why not participate in ethnic cleansing when you can zap the people you hate from the comfort of your home?

[charlie90]

they've been used for yet...

humans have only had their hands on atomic bombs for 80 years. Its very hard to imagine it not being used in the next 1000 years.

[pocksuppet]

Atomic bombs, maybe. Regular bombs, no. Drones, also no. If war meant thousands of American soldiers had to swordfight with thousands of Iranian soldiers and possibly get stabbed and die, instead of just flying planes overhead, we'd have a lot fewer wars. War is easy when you don't have to risk your life.

[lazide]

Looks at history….

There certainly weren’t a lot fewer wars back when people had to physically stab each other with swords. Quite the opposite?

[levinb]

Much more frequent conflicts, yes.

Much less total death and dying as well, though. Battles were short and small scale until the Civil War (maybe the Napoleonic Wars prior? Debatable). The largest battles of history prior to the industrial revolution were in the thousands, 10s of thousands of people. Forces were usually broken and defeated or fled after brief engagements. Brutal in experience, but smaller in scale.

It was that perception of war as personal, intimate, chivalric, by old men that let to the peak atrocity period (PAP? Did I coin a term?) of ~1850-1950. WWI was really the first modern reckoning of industrialized, globalized war, that led to the staggering scale of suffering. Incomprehensible to the men that commanded it, as they were born and acculturated in pre-modern war era culture.

But then the epoch-defining tool of the atom came along, and war has gone back to smaller scale, focused, targeted, "precision".

So here we sit, straddling two eras again. Pre-drone and post drone. We have not fully reckoned with what the new era means. But it will come quickly, like most modern tool-culture cycles.

[lazide]

Ghenghis khan?

[levinb]

A different model of war and Empire.

Yes brutal, for the defenders of the castles and fortified cities they conquered.

But again, very targeted at key sites so as to assert an Imperial-vassal relationship. Not to really to metamorph the populace, and run the day to day, which was left to local leadership.

Their point was to demonstratively subjugate for the purposes of control and tribute, not to kill, replace, or even miscegenate. They were the mob-bosses of Eurasia, not the crusaders or jihadis.

[lazide]

Bwahahahahaha

[kjkjadksj]

Far fewer deaths. In those pitched battles it would mostly be about breaking the organization structure of the opposing line and having the soldiers disperse. Very few battles in history actually saw slaughter of tens of thousands and they remain notable as such.

Wars of the gunpowder age have been far more bloody. Far more destructive to civilian life. Far more lasting damage to the environment.

[casey2]

>also no

So I guess FARC didn't surrender? Where do you get this idea that American imperialism can't possibly work? And can I have some of what you're smoking?