Money or Bombs

When was the last time a relatively poor country successfully attacked and conquered a richer country? You history buffs might come up with some examples, but I think they would be strange exceptions.

I think someone smart could develop a theory that a strong economy is as good a national defense as having excellent weapons. Obviously you need a minimum baseline military deterrent. But anything beyond that might be a waste. Your international trading partners would band together to help you out if you are attacked, to protect their own economic interests.

I don’t know how many nukes the United States has pointed toward China, but one would be too many. China isn’t going to attack its biggest customer. And in the unlikely event that some other country attacks China, we’d offer military assistance in a heartbeat. There’s too much money at stake on both sides.

I wonder if you could make all war decisions on a purely economic basis and come out with the answer that protects the most lives as a side effect. For example, the United States had an economic interest in the smaller war in Afghanistan, to prevent more attacks on the homeland. But the war in Iraq was characterized from the start as “you break it, you bought it.” That’s bad economics.

This is another reason I can’t be president. Whenever a military question came up, my first question would be whether it is a positive return on investment. That would be the opposite of good leadership, but it might keep the country safer and richer.

Comments

[Glenn]

The reason The United States does not attack nations like China and North Korea is a simple one: they can, or appear to be able to fight back. Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Columbia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Lebanon, Hatti... the list goes on did not have the ability to fight back (or at least threaten the United States). Hence easy game.

[mika]

Irak vs. Kuwait

[Joel]

>the VC vs US

Venture capitalists aren't exactly poor, though they seem to have installed a puppet government.

(I realize you meant Viet Cong, but that wasn't conquest of a rich country, it was revolution, which is different...same goes for other colonies.)

[Ethan D]

North Vietnam vs. United States didnt turn out too well for us.

[gadarf]

I like this. Good Post!

[ASM826]

"That would be the opposite of good leadership, but it might keep the country safer and richer."

Or it might not. It might leave us open to a sneak attack from a country that in the end doesn't care how big a customer we are because they have different priorities. So we would be devastated, with millions of casualties, because you looked at China through your own cultural filter instead of understanding the real issues.

[Stephen W. Stanton]

Be careful not to anthropomorphize nations.

Human beings usually have very different goals than the organizations they work for.

Indeed, the entire field of management is about improving this misalignment of interests (i.e., reducing agency costs).

Kim Jong Il, for example, lives pretty well by impoverishing millions of people. If he did what was best for the country, he'd need to give up a lot of power and security.

[Archer]

Obviously you don't think enough Americans were murdered for us to "bother" the middle east.
I wonder if you could put a number to such a concept... Personally, I find 1 sufficient to kill the terrorists until they die from it.
Someday, adults will look at current history and relegate such opinions like yours to the loony bin.

But of a "poorer" and smaller country defeating a larger richer one, look at the Egypt-Israeli war...lasted 6 days and Israel kicked their collective a$$es. Granted we were and are Israels ace-in-the-hole.

[Hologram]

Yeah, all government decisions these days revolve around money. Some of them have been bad decisions, yes, but that's what it boils down to.

However, to answer your first question, I have two examples:

North Vietnam vs. U.S.
Afghanistan vs. USSR

The two most powerful and richest nations of the the mid-20th century were both defeated by dirt poor countries. You could make the argument that at both times the poor country was helped by the Communists or free world respectively, but there was no direct military assistance, and therefore, aid was minimal at best.

[patti]

Patti says:
Scott, do you have a positive return.. for the time you put into this Blog?
I read where you were one of the first to make a profit on a website. What kind of return to do get? Is it financial or political (in case you do run for president)
Time I spend on here gives me a smile for the day, gets me involved in the fantasy world of Dilbert lovers and out of my daily chores (for those moments) ….. just before my normal routine begins for the day.
This blog sometimes makes me look up information I normally couldn't care less about (kind of like playing jeopardy.. only with various answers) and gives me an overview of other people's views. Some funny, some warped, some informative and some not. Although I have no financial gain to show for my time, the escape into reading and writing (and yeah....sometimes arithmetic) can be amusing and therefore worthwhile. Is it a waste of my time? No, not really. Unless I end up thinking about it while multitasking other more meaningful projects and come back to comment again.
Alas, my only return is the real-time moments shared with you exploring weird science, everyday nuances, political musings and world news events…usually with humor and wit.
You are always HERE and thinking.. you exist ..your comics arrive everyday.... the bloggers are arriving (and sometimes swarming) ..and I can take THAT to the bank!

[Kevin Gibbs]

someone probably mentioned it already, but you have the same economic policy as Eisenhower.

[mijj]

"I wonder if you could make all war decisions on a purely economic basis"

I think that's already the basis for all war decision in the capitalist nations (hence the "capitalist") .. it's the *excuses* that aren't.

[Gnu]

In addition to WWII:
Sweden vs. Habsburgs, 30 years war.
Germany vs. France, the war of 1876.
Holland vs. Spain, most of 16'th - 18'th century.
Prussia vs everyone else, repeatedly, from its inception to the unification of Germany. (as someone at the time remarked - "Prussia is not a country with an army, it's an army with a country")
England vs. Spain, repeatedly, from the spanish armada to napoleon.

Do I really need to go on?

[Robert Hamilton]

And The NOBEL PRIZE for economics goes to Scott Adams! Accepting the award on his behalf is Dogbert. You finally got your Nobel prize Scott.

[New Guy]

"When was the last time a relatively poor country successfully attacked and conquered a richer country? You history buffs might come up with some examples, but I think they would be strange exceptions."

All those poor bastards that mention Vietnam. North Vietnam forcing the withdrawl of a far superior force is not the same as N. Vietnan 'conquering' America. I also think it would be inaccurate to say that S. Vietnam's capitulation to N. Vientnam is also an example. Wealth and riches are not the same as having a powerful ally backing you up. There's a difference between your own fat bank account and a friend with a fat bank account. The difference, the friend might leave you.

Scott can't really find any examples of a poor country conquering a rich country because, as the most I can recall, its the rich countries that will exploit the poor countries first. The most significant examples being Italy vs Ethiopia or the rest of the Africa colonization crowd. Japan vs Asia would also be a good example. Not to say that rich countries can't be beaten by poor countries (As I recall, Musket and spear wielding ethiopians defeated the Modern Italian army soundly) Its just the difference between chasing a burglar out of your house, and then chasing him all the way to his house and robbing him. Iraq invading Kuwait is probably the closest one would get to Scott's question, although wealth meant very little to the Iraqi's wielding AK's and T-something tanks.

"I think someone smart could develop a theory that a strong economy is as good a national defense as having excellent weapons. Obviously you need a minimum baseline military deterrent. But anything beyond that might be a waste. Your international trading partners would band together to help you out if you are attacked, to protect their own economic interests."

International Trading partners helping each other out really has happened much, has it? The Gulf War, if you were to use as an example to support the above, I think doesn't have to do too much with trading partners. The Gulf War was the legitimate, moral response to such an outrageous act that was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. Kuwait had offered no provocation and was a legitimate sovereign power. Saddam's greed for Kuwait's Economic powers convinced him that invading Kuwait was good. The Guld War, as argued, might be seen as a more altuistic war than any previous. Although, it would be Ignorant to factor out Kuwait's Friendlieness to the rest of the world in the realm of trade. All i'm saying is that the Gulf war should be considered an altruistic war to return sovereignty after insanity. The point i'm making is that while it might make since to defend a trading partner, It doesn't seem to happen much in the real world.

"I don’t know how many nukes the United States has pointed toward China, but one would be too many. China isn’t going to attack its biggest customer. And in the unlikely event that some other country attacks China, we’d offer military assistance in a heartbeat. There’s too much money at stake on both sides."

Too bad you weren't around to comfort those Russian Train Engineers back in 1941. They were damned confused as to why they were being passed by german armour units while the trains headed west into germany. And, as previously stated, France was Germany's biggest trading partner when the swastika painted tanks did doughnuts in the French countryside. The presumption of Economic interdependence being a shield from war is a false notion. Most wars start with politicains being bad economists. Instead of seeing the Economy, for all pratical purposes, as having limitless growth potential, they start seeing the economies of the world as a pizza. Instead of just going and making some more pizzas when they're hungry, they think some else is taking their slices. So, they attack in order to take back the slices stolen from them. (Shamelessly stolen from P.J. O'Rourke.)If it does come to a war with China, I hope we'll offer military assistance....to the other side (IMHO)

[Matt]

Poor defeating the Rich:
1) Rome wins over Carthage, Greece, and especially Egypt.
2) Landless Germanic hoards beat Rome (ok they teemed up and it took them a few hundred years)
3) The Mongols win over Imperial China (and every following dynasty was pretty much a poor nation taking over and then being bred out of of power - China's defense strategy for the last two thousand years has been "we build a wall to keep the small fry out and then when the big ones arrive we intermarry with them till they disappear
4) England (poor) over France 100 year war.
5) the Ottomans (dirt poor) over the Byzantine empire. Istanbul was Constantinople, now its Istanbul not Constantinople... hey that is catchy I will write a song.
6) the US vs. the UK 1776-83
7) Prussia (initially poor) over everybody in Europe from 1848-1918.
8) pick any colony vs. its mommy country 1776- Dien Bien Phu.
9) the VC vs US (can I buy a vowel?)
10) Iraq

A poor but motivated nation, or one with a lot of young people and a martial culture can beat a rich one, especially if fighting on home turf.

[Chris Marshall]

You support a reduction in American defense spending, based on economics?
With ARABIC numerals?

Maybe you should move to Arabia, Scott Adams, since you so obviously hate our freedom.

---
http://www.martialdevelopment.com/

[Alsadius]

Macedonians beat Greeks. Barbarians beat Romans. Mongols beat everybody. Americans beat British. Soviets beat Germans. Algerians beat French. Vietnamese beat Americans(or, if you prefer, hippies beat Americans, but the effect is the same). As a rule, when you've got a decadent or divided rich nation fighting a poor warrior nation, the rich guys are toast.

And trade preventing wars is a minor factor, at best. All through the 1930s, Germany's biggest trading partner was France. How did that one turn out?

[CPB]

Scott,

I know you love/hate to hear this:

Read The Rise & Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy

Economic prowess as a way to being a great military power is the basic premise of the book

[RT]

Sigh. I see here that many of your commenters seem to believe that the US *lost* the Veitnam war. Actually, the US left after the North signed a peace treaty, and then later the North broke this treaty and invaded again once they'd built their forces back up from the last ass kicking we gave them. We just didn't want to go back in again.

And as far as attacking trading partners goes, in 1938 the biggest trade partners for Germany were France and Russia. We saw how well that worked out now, didn't we?

[Jeff]

No the first question is what is the return. If it is positive then you can ask what assumptions can I change and produce a positive return. For example, If a politically correct war, whatever that is oh I forgot the way we operate in Iraq, is too expensive to get a positive return would a vicious not worry about collateral damage and religious sensibilities turn the analysis positive. Don't know just know the way we are approaching in now is giant loser and does not need a lot of analysis.

[Rob]

Spoken like someone who has no understanding of China, or really any culture other than his own.

[Chris]

Probably already been mentioned, but what your describing is the reason for the GATT (General Agreement on Trade & Tariffs) after World War II. It was a conscious decision to link the economies of the allies with the axis countries, and it was made behind closed doors because public opinion would have destroyed it.

[(an) andrew from california]

Methinks Simon Blake | April 11, 2008 at 04:48 AM might fly a confederate flag in this front yard.
What sayest you?
:-|

[dean]

China wouldn't need to use physical force to attack the states. They could just foreclose.

[Tim Eldred]

"China will not attack its biggest customer." The men who run China will or will not attack anybody for their own reasons. Religion, national pride, hubris can trump economics.

[Tim Eldred]

"China will not attack its biggest customer." The men who run China will or will not attack anybody for their own reasons. Religion, national pride, hubris can trump economics.

[Shri]

Oh dear VitalStatistics! All you need is an Obelix rather.

[TaffyBloke]

The sinews of war are infinite money. - Marcus Tullius Cicero

[argenbert]

as you said in earlier posts, the era of war & conquer is might be waining. it will take a couple of hundred years still.

(at least on earth)

[Andre`]

How about when Macedon conquered all of Greece, It is true as they conquered more they became more rich, but at first they were more impovrished then Greece.

[deaconblue]

Scott...just a thought..can the same hypothesis be tested for individual citizens, as opposed to nations? Are wealthy people more secure and immune to attacks/robberies than poor people? i know u keep harping about how taxes, intellectual property thefts, etc affect the rich.
So, bonus question for day: when it comes to individuals, Money or Guns?? :-)

[sam gates]

Yea, your title sounds similar to the phrase "guns or butter" which expresses the same basic premise you suggest, the most notable example being U.S. vs. Russia. It's pretty commonly taught in high school world history classes. My best guess is that you just forgot you learned it years ago.

[jerry w.]

Read "The Mouse That Roared" by Leonard Wibberley, or see the 1959 Peter Sellers film.

Yeah, sure, it was all fiction...

Same as the entire logic behind our regime change in Iraq and the soon to be one in Iran.

It's just funnier and more than 4,000 Americans didn't die in it.

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

[Ray]

The Mongols were nomads, living off their herds. I suppose that's more wealth than the guy living in the mud hut with only one cow, but it certainly didn't match the wealth in the rest of Asia, the Middle East and Europe - but they conquered from China to Eastern Europe.

Random thought: The wealthy guy has less motive to attack and has usually grown 'soft' on his luxury. The poor guy has lots of motive and been toughened by hardship.

[MattF]

Ain't true that international trade was negligible in antiquity. See:

http://www.mcgill.ca/files/economics/theprehistoricorigins.pdf

[Simon Blake]

"[Didn't Germany lose WWII? -- Scott]"

Yes, they did, but only after first conquering much larger, richer neighbours, and only after a long war in which they were ranged against pretty much the whole of the rest of the developed world and managed to hold their own, not for weeks or months but for YEARS. That one single country subjugated the whole of mainland Europe for half a decade.

It's as though North Dakota took over the rest of the US by force, and only help from Russia and China liberated the plucky Californian Maquis...

[Simon Jester]

Scott,

Please tell me this is one of your "Dance, monkey, dance!" posts.

Because if it isn't - your ignorance of history is scary.

The basic answer to your inital question - "When was the last time a relatively poor country successfully attacked and conquered a richer country?" - is: "Every single time the richer country was unwilling to fight."

If anything, it's the rule through history that poor "countries" (with a really pressing need for resources) successfully invade and conquer materially rich "countries" that can't defend themselves. See Iraq vs. Kuwait most recently, before that try North vs. South Vietnam, before that pretty much the whole history of India, China, North America, arguably South America (16th Century Spain may be the only country in history to experience raging inflation due to an increase in the supply of gold, rather than through debasing the coinage), Europe and pretty much the whole of the rest of the world.

Buying the poorer side off doesn't work, either - try googling "Danegeld".

Any time a rich country is prepared to fight, they will eventually annihilate a poorer opponent - see Rome for most of the first 700 years of its existence (OK, the Teutons are an exception), the USA for most of its existence (except during the Vietnam war, when they weren't prepared to fight), most European empires (against non-European or North American opponents) up to 1950, and so on.

Your related point - that trading partners don't go to war with each other - isn't correct either. Try any number of South American wars, the first World War (Britain and Germany were each other's biggest trading partners) or any Civil War.

I hope you enjoyed my dancing. Now gimme a banana.

[wernman]

The Soviet Union was isolated as the "Evil Empire", and that strategy worked to bring Soviet communism crashing to its knees.

The policy should be the same with China, money be damned. They are the worst human rights violators on the planet, even worse then the Soviets, and we look the other way.

[Mike]

Sorry this is off topic but we have got the worst case of speaker phone man that I have every come across right now. The lady on the far away part of the speaker phone is from the USofA. I would say from the accent she is from Pennsylvania, probably the Delaware Valley area of Philadelphia, but I guess she might have moved around. I am in an open plan cubicle, the man is in an office, but has the door wide open. Can murder EVER be justified?

[Sebastian]

Isaac Asimov wrote a series called "Foundation", one of the themes of which explores this very notion that trade interdependance is great for mutually assured safety.

[Riho]

Soviet Union did take over Baltic States

[Tomas Liubinas]

War in Iraq is bad economics??? Wow man. The only reason for this war which US is about to lose and withdraw is economical. The war is on who controls oil. And the question is not oil because you can buy it or exchange for something else you produce anyway, the question is OIL CURRENCY.

I normaly would not write it because it is against our all intersts to spread panics, but it looks like too much people are not aware that your country hangs your political opponents (btw with strong public support).

A citation from
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1554.htm

" But the situation has changed with the collapse of the US share market bubble. Since the end of 2000, the dollar has fallen by more than 15 percent against the euro.

This is leading OPEC producers to consider whether, at some point in the future, it might be worth their while to shift from payments in dollars to euros. In a speech delivered in April last year, Javad Yarjani, head of OPEC’s Petroleum Market Analysis Department, noted that while in most OPEC countries would continue, in the short-term, to demand payment in dollars, OPEC “will not discount entirely the possibility of adopting euro pricing and payments in the future.”

A shift by OPEC to the euro would rapidly confront the US with an economic “nightmare scenario.” Major oil importers would need to transfer some of their funds from US dollars reserves—stocks, bonds and other assets—into euro reserves. This would see a sharp fall in the value of the dollar, possibly setting in motion a further withdrawal of funds as investors became nervous over the value of their dollar assets. Suddenly the burgeoning US debt, which at present plays little or no role in day-to-day financial calculations, would become a factor of considerable importance.

In other words, a switch in the financial basis of the oil export market, or a significant part of it, would have major consequences for the global financial position of the US, quite irrespective of whether oil was freely available or the price charged for it. However, if the US were in control of Iraqi supplies, either directly or through a puppet, it would be in a much better position to block any currency shift by the OPEC countries."

Greetings from Lithuania
http://tomas.liubinas.com/

[Joe]

I think that trade between China and the US is a strong deterant to war, whereas the lack of western - soviet economic ties helped to entrench the cold war.

But then you have to define war. An all out war between China and the US is highly unlikely unless China goes meglamaniac and attacks Taiwan. However, a few little skirmishes subtly or directly backed by both sides in third world countries rich in resources or strategic importance is not at all unlikely. e.g. Korea, Vietnam in the past.

As for the greater economic power always winning, there haven't been any all out wars between large economic powers in the modern era, i.e. since WWII. Before that I'd say history is divided. refer to Phillips post above.

[Miroslav]

North Vietnam

[Elisa]

When people start thinking about war in terms of the loss of lives, talent, and potential, in terms of the loss to mankind, in human terms, in cultural terms (read John Donne, Meditation 17) instead of in purely monetary terms, to decide whether it is "a good return on investment", that will be an era of enlightment for humanity.

[Detlef]

> whether it is a positive return on investment

For whom?

[James]

I've just read all the comments left here and it seems that the arguments against you are very poor and some are completely unfounded (Germany having a weak economy at the start of WWII) I think you have a good point about nuclear weapons. the countries that currently have them would never use them as they would only hurt themselves, rather it is more likely that a rogue state or terrorist cell is the greatest risk to use a WMD as a retaliatory strike is not an option.

[BobNL]

[Whenever a military question came up, my first question would be whether it is a positive return on investment. That would be the opposite of good leadership]

Only if you're honest about it. If you lie and cheat like this adminstration has done, you're allright. In fact you would be a perfectly normal president.

[Kirado]

um.. where you sleeping through 9/11..? The bombs on the London underground? The Bombing of trains in Spain? Thanks to technology you don't need lots of money to attack people these days. Thought that would be obvious.

Also thanks to the nifty Russians and their wonderful invention --the AK-47.. Because it is so robust and can be easily and cheaply manufactured, wars with small arms can now go on for eternity in Africa and the middle east.

Without this gun there would be a lot less armed conflict. Unfortunately it's designed too well unlike more complicated guns, which are expensive and need maintenance. So poor people can shoot each other for ever. Also now thanks to the internet everyone now knows how to make bombs outa string and crazy glue.

But Wars are decided on positive returns on investment. Governments just don't always tell you what the returns are. eg. oil contracts, weapons deals, trade agreements etc. You scratch my back and I'll let you dump your nuclear waste in my country. That kinda thing.

Also a point to remember about allies..if playing realtime strategy war games has taught me anything.. is this. They are only your allies until you can stab them in the back before they stab you in the back.. lot like the Mafia. Same goes for your enemies and people you do business with.

[Dmitry]

The examples may not be very resent but they are quite resounding: Great Britain conquering (and subsequently smashing the economy of) India and later - China. Both conquered countries were much richer and produced nearly three times of industrial output of GB at the time.

Nowdays, such brutal approach is passe. First, you break up the enemy country (Yugoslavia, Soviet Union) with "color revolutions" under the premise of making it "democratic" then you skull-f.. the remnants.

[syn]

I don’t know how many nukes the United States has pointed toward China, but one would be too many. China isn’t going to attack its biggest customer.

========================================================

Shame about New Zealand, Australia, Taiwan or anywhere else china decides they need to feed thier massive population.

[rita mae]

Got to work this morning at 8:00 a.m. (Wednesday morning)
Leaving work now. It's 12:14 a.m. (Thursday morning)

Ate a banana and a granola bar for breakfast at my desk, a chicken salad sandwich at my desk for lunch and two pieces of pizza that the ex-marine brought to the office for dinner. One of the CPAs brought me an ice cream bar. The radio says the streets are icy outside now. I wouldn't know. I don't have window. Hope I get home in time to try to sleep before I get up and start this again.

Tax Season. Bah Humbug. I say it again and again.

Try having severe sleep apnea and then putting in those kind of hours. What a whiner I am. It will be over next week. Hope I live that long. BWAHAHAHAHA

There's always time to say goodnight to my friends.

Rita (blurry-eyed) Mae

[Urs]

The question about the Return on Investment was asked - and answered before any war, I'm sure. There are people close to the president who make a lot of money off the war in Iraq.
The problem for the country (if there is such a thing, perhaps we should say: for the taxpayers) is that the Return is not going where the Investment came from...
But that's the motor of politics: distributing the cash...

It would be interesting to see you as President, though.

[antony]

Hi not related to your post but a willy being cut off is something to have a chuckle over, provided it's not your own

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/angry-wife-severes-husbands-penis/2008/04/11/1207856765311.html

[Jai]

Let us look at the other side of the coin and ask, “When was the last time a relatively rich country successfully attacked and conquered a poorer country?” US lost in Vietnam and appears to be losing in Iraq while USSR lost in Afghanistan. There are cases when the rich country did win (e.g. UK in Falklands) but it is by no means universal.

Does this mean a strong economy is a good defense against attack but not helpful when you attack a poorer country? Is there a contradiction here?

[(an) andrew from california]

I wish war was always a matter of economics.

Iraq, for example. We really *should* be taking more of their oil/oil money. What is the cost of their freedom? it's trillions of US dollars, that's what. we should be paid back for our efforts and expense.

maybe it didn't start out as war for oil (because if it were, how come our oil prices aren't dropping?), but I have no qualms about turning it into a war for oil now.

we need the cash.

[Marie]

Were the colonies richer than England?

[polaris]

I hope China and USA are good partner and friends in ecnomic or culture.
Why have a war between ?

-----------------------------
http://www.discovery5000.com

[William]

Japan is a good example of a strong economy and a non-existent military.

Japan has the biggest bank in the world, with more than 400 million accounts and assets in excess of 3 trillion dollars.
(Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/oct/01/japan)

Given the way that international finance are inter-woven the chances are that damaging Japanese banks would have a ripple effect through holding companies, investment portfolios, and general economic mayhem, and you'd end up suffering. Given that tinpot dictators and American presidents alike are very attached to their retirement portfolios it would be a very bad idea to attack a country that has considerable economic clout, not to mention the whiplash effect on their own country's economy.

Now some genius out there may be tempted to point out that Japan is 'defended' by American troops and American ships. Simply put America is not in the region to defend Japan, its in the region to defend their money.

[edward murrow]

In terms of needing superior economic firepower to win a war, come on now, seriously? No, seriously? try doing a google search on these ones:

Vietnam war. (and not just the US one either, try the Indochina war and China for a few thousand years before that. They kick everyone out)
Korean war. Or more correctly known to Americans as the Korean Conflict (aha! no need to declare war if we call it a 'conflict'. zing!)

Any war in Afghanistan - first anglo-afghan onwards. They pretty much kick everyone out as well (see Vietnam).

and as for 'your international trading partners would come to your aid if you needed help' come on now Scott, you are just trying to provoke. Let me ask you this - when did the US become involved in WWII? When their long time allies France and England were beseiged? Or when it was perceived that the US was threatened? (here is a hint - pearl harbour)

[KD]

I can't remember the last time a poor country successfullu attacked a richer one, but I know the barbarians were able to take out Rome. I don't think the barbarians were as rich as the romans at the time.

*********
China isn’t going to attack its biggest customer.
*********

The US only accounts for 20% of China's sales now and to be honest, they hold most of our debt. In other words, we aren't worth holding back on that much if they think they could win.

************
Whenever a military question came up, my first question would be whether it is a positive return on investment.
************

Historically, money and trade are big factors in most wars getting started.

[Douglas Montague]

Yet another half baked idea?

[Arby]

The greatest successful weapons of mass destruction America has are Coca Cola, Levis and McDonalds. They have conquered more countries than are members of the United Nations. Our TV and movies brought down the Iron Curtin when Boris and Natasha got tired of freezing their butts off waiting in line for coffee and toilet paper. Turn Iraq into a theme park and even the Arabs would flock there. Money talks and lots of money roars.

[Jeff]

I think that'd make you a good leader.
Starting a war over anything else would be a sign of a poor leader - you care more about something else then your own men.

The best leaders would never tell their men to do something they were not willing to do themselves.

I think historically, the most respected leaders in war have actually fought in one. No chicken-hawks will be lauded in history.

[Joe Cooper]

Doesn't this assume that war automatically cuts off trade?

I think that if the states and china actually did go to war, niether would touch the trade for exactly those reasons. But they could still fight.

Fun trivia: The American SR-71 spy plane was made with titanium bought from the Soviet Union.

The Mig-25 Foxbat was built by the Soviets to intercept it. But they didn't have titanium to build it with, and instead used cheap, massive metals. The result of the poor design and metallurgy was that it couldn't actually maintain it's top speed without permanently ruining it's own engines, and it couldn't turn well enough to fight without deforming it's own airframe.

[D. Mented]

The "good return on investment " policy can work running a nation...As long as you consider research and development part of the picture (not all research produces a good return, but not enough research lets the competition get ahead of you and buy your company, so you just have to eat the cost of the unprofitable research if you want to stay in business)
America got where we are because of two things; lots of resources, and staying ahead of everybody else in science and technology.
Letting other countries educate their children thoroughly while we "save money" on our school system - and then hiring foreign scientists and engineers- is a risky form of insourcing. Foreign engineers, scientists, researchers, and so on, who don't get hired in America (and those that make their "grubstake" and go home) can then invent and develop stuff that's better than our stuff. Although most American kids' education is really a waste of tax dollars, the overall return produced by the ones that do learn something is the difference between a thriving empire and a fallen one. That's why it's important to support and vastly improve the public school system.
Details like this should be obvious, but to people educated in American schools, this might be a little 'advanced'.
I suspect we're doomed.
D. Mented

[GeraldNZ]

Pietro's comments on US forces being used to force the world to trade oil in dollars, and Andy W's speculation on the disappearance of Iraqi oil after the invasion (they stopped producing because the infrastructure was blown up, not because the oil was being stolen) are nonsense, but they are the kind of nonsense that can be expected as a cost of unprincipled, inconsistent US foreign policy.

Let's not pretend that invading Iraq was about promoting democracy in the Middle East. That was a post-invasion rationalisation, and was not a sufficient reason to invade.

[Josh]

Scott,

I think that in 1939 France was one of Germany's largest trading partners, and in 1940-41 Germany and the USSR traded a lot as well. War is almost always an irrational decision--whatever gains are made do not recover the capital expended.

[GeraldNZ]

Like I've said before, US foreign policy should take account of US self-interest, but in an enlightened way that takes account of the long-term signalling benefits of a principled approach. That is, do the right thing and you earn international brownie points that have all kinds of spin-offs. US policy contradictions, such as saying that trade with China promotes democracy while trade with Cuba would undermine Cuba's chances of democracy (only the first statement is correct), come at enormous cost.

I don't disagree that the Iraq invasion was an incredibly bad investment and Afghanistan was a possibly profitable one, albeit under-capitalised due to the drain on resources from Iraq. One of the things that made Iraq a bad investment was that it was not in any way justified by a genuine threat, or even in the sense of retribution for an attack on American soil (turfing out the Taliban had a strong element of that, and the world understood it). That meant that Iraq cost America international kudos and influence (as well as trillions of dollars and thousands of lives).

[DWH]

Another way of looking at it is with the question...when was the last war in which the US actually took something?I believe it was the Spanish American War.So all wars after that have been a waste of money.

[JEQP]

Rome was already falling apart when it was conquered, rotting from the inside.

[Michael]

Isn't "safer and richer" the very definition of good leadership? And the exact opposite of what we have now?

[Jeff Lewis]

History teaches that war begins when governments believe the price of aggression is cheap. --Ronald Reagan

[Steve]

Scott - Germany lost WWII physically, but won it economically! Look at the economic might of both Germany & Japan.

This higlights a point made by the late Aussie Billionaire Robert Holmes a Court, who postulated (1988) that if Australia was to outsource its defence (say Air defense to the Yanks, Naval to India, Anti-terrorist to Israel, Commandos to the English) the annual budget surplus would build and staff all the hospitals and all the schools the country required, plus lower the tax rates, and improve the standard of living to top of the pile...

Of course the defence minister wouldn't get as many perks when he left office...

[jimmypg]

Very rarely can it make economic sense for a country like the USA to go to war. The USA can spend billions in a couple of years, whereas looking a bit chicken doesn't cost a huge amount. The fact is that it is the leader (or leaders) that need to go to war, to protect their egos. And it is relatively easy for them to do that, because the guys that risk their necks are other people's sons. If we restored the practice of leading from the front, like King Richard the Lionheart, or one of the Sioux chieftains, maybe a few more peace pipes would be smoked before battle was joined.

[mwk]

I know I am being picky but the US is third on China's customer list. Japan is number one and the EU is number two.

Therefore we are not their best customer.

[nerdboy]

This is another reason that free trade is so beneficial; it helps to promote peace as countries become more interdependant.

[Will Perkins]

an example - poor Syria invading and occupying relatively rich Lebanon

[George]

What about North Vietnam conquering South Vietnam?

[mac83704]

I think the thing you are missing is that terrorists don't need to "conquer" to be effective. All they need to do is attack. They don't want our land, they want to change our opinions/viewpoints/investments.

[Your Mom]

Spain was rich off of new world wealth in 1589 and got humbled badly by a much poorer England.

[Harry Buttle]

"Whenever a military question came up, my first question would be whether it is a positive return on investment. That would be the opposite of good leadership, but it might keep the country safer and richer."

I doubt it, staying and winning in Somalia would have looked like a bad investment, but running is what encouraged OBL to hit the US on 9/11.

The best defence is a strong offence and the willingness to use it.

[Kubla]

I'm pretty sure the Mongols had less money than the Chinese. For that matter this was the case for almost all raiders/barbarians (many of whom founded their own empires through conquest).

[John Reedy]

Costa Rica doesn't even have a millitary, and they never have problems with anyone.

http://awritersblock.com

[Jaime Bakulic]

The only example I can think of is Hannibal conquering Rome, or Genghis Kahn conquering Asia. But I don't think it counts because those weren't countries, but kingdoms, empires, etc

[Robert Smith]

Vietnam?

Oh wait, no you guys won that one.

[Fletch]

There will never be another war. At least not like we're used to. Nobody will stand up and fight toe-to-toe with the United States. Not even China or Russia. And it is indeed because of economics. In order for a traditional war to start, the U.S. would have to totally alienate the rest of the world such that they have a chance at a victory. But then again, even the U.S. would back down or try to negotiate at that point. You need a country that's belligerent enough to go all the way, like Iraq.

The "Iraq War" was an aberration, and it was mostly due to Saddaam Hussein's pride.

Instead, what we'll have are conflicts or simply terrorist attacks. A group like al Qaeda has no chance to face the U.S. military head-to-head, so they'll sneak into the country and blow up random people instead. Kinda like Red Dawn, but different.

[Sam Davis]

Careful, Scott. You're beginning to sound like a libertarian. The short description of the libertarian position on war comes from Ben Frankin, "There never has been a good war or a bad peace." Libertarians, laissez faire free marketers all, believe any war is bad both morally and practically.

Wars destroy lives, property and the ability to earn a decent living for many others, leaving them impoverished.

The return on investment, except in purely defensive wars, is almost always zero. Even in purely defensive wars, there is a calculated tradeoff to the minus side.

There are those who contend that World War II was great for the American economy. It was, but in an artificial way, and it didn't last.

As WW2 began the government spent hundreds of millions building weapons and munitions, etc. After WW2, thanks to the industrial competition (chiefly Germany and Japan) having been bombed flat, American industry had an artifical leg up until about 1965.

A rude awakening followed with Germany and Japan back on their feet. It took the U.S. another decade or more to figure out how to compete again, something we'd not really done since the 1920s.

Ultimately, the cost-benefit to the U.S. of WW2, and all the smaller wars that followed, could be said to come down heavy on the cost side with few immediate benefits. All the benefits have been way at the back end, when we finally learned lessons we could have learned decades earlier, or had forgot.

This of course does not count the human costs - millions dead in WW2, something like 800,000 Vietnamese and 60,000 U.S. dead in Vietnam, approaching 4000 U.S. dead in Iraq and maybe 100,000 Iraqis, etc.

[henry]

[Didn't Germany lose WWII? -- Scott]

uhuh. But who's winning now ? Germany did successfully conquer a number of countries, didn't they ?

I like the Swiss. They have a lot of money. And cuckoo clocks. Wonder how many nukes and other WoMD they have ?

[House of Payne]

There is actually lots of good political science theorizing on economics and causes of war. Many people, like you, argue that war is foolish between countries that are economically interdependent. The first to make this argument was probably Norman Angell, in the years right before WWI.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

However, economically interdependent countries do sometimes fight, foolish or not. For instance, Europe in 1914 was more economically interconnected than ever before in history (or ever again until the 1970s) but this did not prevent WWI. Dale Copeland wrote a great article about ten years ago explaining when we should expect interdependent countries to fight.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/copeland.htm

But clearly, there are cases in which wealth does not deter conquest, but rather invites it. Steven Van Evera, for example, argues that war is more likely when resources are more cumulative (such as gold reserves and oil fields, which can easily be converted into military power). And of course this is complicated also by the degree of resistance from the occupied population (see Peter Liberman's Does Conquest Pay?). But even when you know the population will not welcome you with open arms, you might still want to fight for it.

Taiwan spends 15-20% of their budget on defense to protect them from the People's Republic of China, which is their most important trading partner. And Taiwan is the largest source of foreign direct investment on the mainland. But lots of scholars still think they could end up fighting, and both parties are actively preparing for this contingency.

Anyway, I think you get the point. Wealth does not always protect you. It seems this way to us here in the US, because we have two huge oceans and two weak neighbors. For us, it makes lots of sense to build a big economy and just keep a skeletal army which we can expand in times of war. And that's what we've done, more or less, since our independence. Poland, stuck between Germany and Russia, did not have this luxury.

Maybe this all is changing now, but most states still want to hedge their bets. Japan, for instance, doesn't have an army or a navy. But they have a self-defense force with submarines, destroyers, artillery, fighter planes, etc. This costs them about $40-50 billion a year, which is about the same as what the Germans and Russians spend, and a little less than the French and British. Of course, we have a treaty with Japan, promising to defend them if they get into any trouble. But better safe than sorry, right?

[ortelius]

Scott wrote: "I'll give you the ancient wars, when international trade was negligible. And the Israeli is an exception for lots of reasons."

I don't think that international trade in Rome Empire time was negligible. Contrary, in my opinion, it was huge. Just mind the amount of wheat imported from Egypt and another row materials from the whole (known) world.

As for dollar and US Empire, you can find a history lesson here: http://www.weberglobal.net/Historyofmoneycompleter.pdf

[dan]

If economics were the only incentive, nothing prevents mass genocide.
For example:
A poor country which is currently fighting itself and/or poor neighboring countries, producing little but being very rich in natural resources (lumber,diamonds,oil,whatever).

It cost a fortune to get involved with peacekeeping and foreign aid (food/drugs/ect), and you get very little return on your investment.

Although I suppose this partially validates your rich = safe argument, it goes against making military decisions based on ROI.

This is why the US sometimes looks mean, because it looks like your leader make a ROI decision to go to war based on his own pocket book and those of his friends.

Where as countries like Canada involved in peacekeeping and foreign aid look good.

If the US does 100 good international things and 1 bad thing, everyone locks on to the 1 bad thing.

[John]

A theory I have heard in my economics classes is that a strong defense would be to develop a codependency of trade with another country. If Russia (for example) were to become dependent upon us for food and we would become dependent on their oil or metals, there would be great pressure in both countries to resist conflict.

[Schmendrick]

@Aaron deOliveira

Um. You LOST the War of 1812. You attacked, didn't gain any territory, we burned your White House, and then we gave back the prisoners.

Just saying.

[AC]

Germany lost but not because of France's efforts. The point is, Germany after losing WWI, came back and took over Europe in revenge in a very short period of time.

If we could get everyone in the world food, clean water and their own space to call home each day, I think there would be little fear of any more wars or attacks. Wishful thinking.

Someone always hates someone for some reason. It will lead to conflict.

[J]

I'd vote for you, anyway.

[RPK]

A good military capability, even if only for defensive purposes, costs a great deal to equip, train and maintain. The US provides a lot of the defense for countries like Japan and South Korea. That frees up money in those countries to build other industries, which ironically have devastated US businesses like cars, appliances, footwear, and electronics.

China has been using massive amounts of our money, which we send them in exchange for more products that used to be made here, to embark on a huge military build-up. While it is unlikely they would attack their best customer, it's worth asking what would happen if they tried to take back Taiwan by force, or used even greater military force against Tibet. Would we/could we/should we intervene militarily?

[tubaguy]

I've always wondered what where the Palestinians would find suicide bombers if all their teenaged boys had nintendos.

[Robert B.]

ROI? How much did it cost to fill up your car Scott? Thats Bush's ROI. He just made up a bunch of stuff in order to get it. The torture is just for shits and giggles.

[Scott from Canada]

Well, it depends on how you define conquest. Vietnam was in the possession of the French, a rich country, and was retaken by Vietnamese rebels, who were dirt poor. Of course they also defeated the Americans in the process, but as America didn't own Vietnam I'll let it slide.

Actually in most of the anti-colonial wars a poor state defeated a rich state. But again, defining ownership, and therefore conquest, is trick in these examples.

[quantum_flux]

I'll vote for you if you run Scott :)

[Fuzznsmoo]

Why would that be bad leadership? Money is still true power, which is why China can tell us to go suck an egg when it comes to Tibet. They don't need nukes when they have our money.

[squigs]

Surely it's simply down to richer countries having more money to spend on defence. Which means that it's true that rich poor countries don't attack rich countries, but it's also true that teenagers don't attack violent psycopaths armed with shotguns. Both are pretty damn obvious.

[Volker Hetzer]

Your reasoning is good for wars between sane countries, but they very seldom go to war with one another anyway.

But this isn't the whole picture because nutcase regime may attack anyway because it believes its own propaganda (or religion or ideology or whatever). There "deterrent" wouldn't work, you need to limit the damage to you between their attack and your response. And the movers will probably be safe in switzerland before your nukes hit lunatistan. One of your allies against terror really springs to mind, doesn't it? Always one election away from a bunch of religious fundamentalists getting their hands on nuclear missiles.

[Sazkul]

I don't know..but the reality is that the American are from winning in Iraq.

[Dale]

[Didn't Germany lose WWII? -- Scott]

60 some years after the fact there is some doubt as to who won and who lost.(a previous posting on taking the long view) Germany has good employment, proper government services and a healthly stable ecomony, we on the otherhand suffer the ravages of 7 Bush-years. The last 4 administrations, under the guise of free trade, have given this country away. I'd like to say sold to the highest bidder, but with no rate of return, we got screwed on that to.

[James]

The Mongols are the greatest of a host of examples of dirt-poor nomadic tribes conquering larger, richer civilizations.
Others include the barbarians that conquered Rome, the Hyksos and the Egyptians, and the Manchus and Chinese.

This tendency dropped off quite a bit after around 1800, perhaps when rich states reached a certain level of wealth and technology.

[Wizard Tim]

Well, in 1941 Nazi Germany's biggest trading partner was?
Soviet Russia: the target of the German attack.
So being trading partners is no defence.
And don't I recall something about the USA being defeated by some poor impoverished south-east asian contry back in the 70's? Or was it all a hoax filmed in a hangar in Arizona?

[Skeptical Fanboy]

Scott,

As others have pointed out, I think you're conflating correlation with causation. The reason nations with strong economies don't generally get conquered by nations with smaller/weaker economies is because only strong economies can afford to maintain the powerful militaries required to act as either the strong deterrent to aggression or the powerful offensive force needed to support aggression.

BTW: The post-WWI Germany that eventually became Nazi Germany was an economic disaster. Some theories posit that Hitler's nationalistic policies and military build-up actually helped revive the German economy.

And of course, the Iraq-invades-Kuwait thing that happened 18 years ago is another counterexample.

[shan564]

I'm no history buff, but I know that the Gulf War was started by Iraq (poor, debt-ridden) invading Kuwait (lavishly wealthy, loaned billions of dollars to Iraq).

Also, I can think of many common examples... Japan conquered most of China around WWII, Hitler used the beat-up post-WWI Germany to conquer most of Europe, Pakistan conquered a big chunk of India in 1965 (before the Soviet Union intervened)... and that's just the well-known ones (the Pakistan example is well-known to me because I was born there).

[Marcus]

The general thesis that rich countries defeat poorer ones is probably true (again, generally true) for recent history only. In modern times (say, 1700 onwards) the technology of weapons and the means to mass-produce them has advanced so quickly that those who can afford the newest and best equipment, and who can afford to keep a professional standing army under arms, have a decisive advantage.

But go much farther back in time, and war-fighting technology generally becomes relatively cheap and low-tech. Technology, and the money to pay for it, aren't that important anymore. A musket is better than a spear, but not by much, so being able to buy muskets isn't the overwhelming advantage that, say, being able to buy machine guns is. And with uncomplicated equipment, training is easy and you don't need a standing army.

So I'd say, go back to the middle ages and earlier and wealth as such is of little advantage. Everyone had more or less the same stuff and the same means to produce the stuff. That's how you can get poor Mongol tribesmen overrunning rich Chinese cities (repeatedly). Even stone age hunters could put up a good fight with homemade weapons in that era. Wealth, as we understand the idea, really wasn't a factor. Numbers, leadership, and geography counted for more than wealth.

[Duncan]

I am still waiting for the alien squirrels to invade us and force us all to work in their nut mines.

[Ross]

Scott - Please run for president. An economist would be far from the worst candidate.

[Mike]

Are you asumming the only way to topple a richer country is militarily? Even a rich country with a strong economy can crumble by attacking the foundation of the economy...confidence. A terrorist attack on the nation's capitol. A cyper attack to bring the infrastructure of the nation to a halt. An outbreak of a biological epidemic. etc. A strong military is essential in ensuring that hostile forces are not able to take advantage of the country during it's weakest period.

[steve]

I believe that economic interdependence is a war deterrent but a strong military is an essential back up. The wild card is a country with an unstable or irrational leadership. Radical religious fanatics determined to kill non believers are not deterred be economics.

[KMFPL]

I think people keep missing the "successfully" and "conquered" in Scott's original post.

It's easy to attack, a lot harder to win...

[Joshua Ungerleider]

Good point Scott, but if you're going to break Wars down to economic factors, wouldn't you need to take into account that some people benefit financially from having a large military?

[Will]

"When was the last time a relatively poor country successfully attacked and conquered a richer country?"

Wasn't Germany poor at the start of WWII?

"China isn’t going to attack its biggest customer."

Why sell your products at market prices when you can "encourage" your subjects to buy your crap at inflated prices?

"And in the unlikely event that some other country attacks China, we’d offer military assistance in a heartbeat."

China's been the bitch of just about every world power for the last two centuries, including the U.S., and they've finally mustered enough power to garner respect. Everyone was too busy marketing to China's population or using their cheap labor to worry about what's best for China, which includes stopping such activities.

[Anshul]

Pakistan has attacked India many times... not successfully... but caused enough damage to warrant some attention

[Mike]

The really complex part of this is the external dependancies. We depend on China for cheap production (and we owe them a lot of money/they hold a lot of us loan instruments) and they depend on cheap sources of oil, including from states the US doesn't deal with - like Iran.

How do second or third level connections - like tacit Chinese support for the genocide in Darfur, or the current issues over Tibet, really impact first level interaction between the US and China?

Would the US really attack Iran, if disrupting the oil flow to China would affect it's economy and cause it to run on US credit or embargo critical imports to the US?

[Yissachar]

Read Kant's "Universal History". He came to the same conclusion.

[Steven]

[Didn't Germany lose WWII? -- Scott]

Not because of anything France did, or their economic power.
Someone already mentioned Kuwait.

I don't think there is a need to add "and capture." I think attacking and inflicting massive damage would be good enough. Yes no one is going to attack and capture the US. However, plenty of countries/organizations would seek to do us harm.

That said, I am in basic agreement with you and President Washington: a country's foreign policy should extend no further than it's self-interest.

[Yuriy]

[Didn't Germany lose WWII? -- Scott]

It was way too close for comfort. If they hadn't attacked Russia.....

[Christin]

I think you're confusing correlation and causation.

[korektphool]

Your argument goes as follows: economic interdependence would tend to reduce wars.

If every country acted rationally, this would indeed be the case. But you have to remember that a lot of countries whose leaders' outcomes are not perfectly (or not even closely) aligned to their country's outcomes.

So when it becomes advantageous for a leader to wage war even when his country's interests are not served -- and I would argue this happens a lot -- your theory doesn't really hold.

[Bruce Harrison]

A doubly good day! Not only do you not vote, you're not going to run for political office! Hooray!!!

When you're talking ROI, you need to examine the entire economic spectrum. The ROI on the Iraq war has to do with things like keeping our economy strong. Look at the impact (no pun intended) on our economy of 9/11. Now think of the impact (ditto) of Saddam having developed nukes and then given a couple to al Qaeda to set off in New York and Washington, D.C. And take a look at what could happen to the world economy as well, if ours starts to falter.

That's why this "no blood for oil" thing is such a joke. It wasn't about oil. If it were, we would have been paying $1.00 at the pump after taking over the Kuwaiti oil fields following the first Gulf war. It's about stability in the region, keeping the economy growing and preventing nukes from going off in downtown Walnut Creek.

The only way to get a direct ROI out of war is to plunder the loser. Pragmatically, while this will give you short-term gains, long-term it is counterproductive. Take a look at Germany after WWI for a prime example. Countries get really really pissed at you when you do this, and find ways to get back at you. WWII was Germany's way.

One thing to consider is that anti-war protests can be counterproductive as well. If you have an enemy who wants to fight you, saying to them that you don't really want to fight back isn't very effective. So when the teeming masses of anti-war people take to the streets to stop limited wars, what they're really saying is, "Hey, wait until they're able to get strong enough to really give us a fight, and THEN go to war when you have no other choice!"

So rather than have a limited war like Iraq, where we have sadly and unfortunately lost 4,000 service people, the anti-war groups would rather we not fight until, say, Iran gets nukes, conquers the other middle-eastern countries, consolidats their oil, drives the price up to $300/barrel, and starts WWIII by nuking Israel. That way, we can kill MILLIONS and also, as a side benefit, go into an economic depression that will last twenty years! Great idea, huh??

It's challenging to give peace a chance when there are people out there who just want to conquer or kill you. That's not nice to consider, but it is the real world. And in this world, asymmetric warfare is becoming in vogue. Countryless warriors, banded together by a twisted version of their religion, have been at war with us for many years. We just refused to believe it.

So now, we can either put our heads in the sand and withdraw, giving the enemy time to get really big and powerful, or we can try to contain them, remove their sources of funding, and support our allies. So, what would you do?

[Tom]

Will China attach the US directly, probably not. What will happen between the US and China when China attacks Taiwan?

Remember that in WWII it was when Poland was attacked that France and Great Brittan actively joined the hostilities.

Remember that China is a communist nation and cannot tell the truth. They will do what they want when they want and the decadent west, who owes China billions, will not do anything until drawn into war via Taiwan.

[Arni Klimikov]

Great plan Scott !

Always assume that others think the same way you do.
They also will have the same goals, motivations, fears and standards that you do.

Then, logically, you can never be wrong !

[Jim]

Syria is a poor country with a large military that has controlled Lebanon for many years, leeching off its superior economy.

[Lisa]

The first thing that came to my mind when I read this post was the novel The Mouse That Roared by Leonard Wibberley. There's a movie version of it with Peter Sellers as well.

[engsci]

I think Canada is a good example of what you're talking about.

[Davesnothere]

"The Mouse That Roared"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053084/

Anybody?

Dave

[Dave]

We are under attack from China- its just an economic attack, not a military one.

Why our gov't continues to allow the yuan to be pegged at ridiculous and artificial levels is astounding. Perhaps someone's making a lot of money, eh?

Dave

[bbuddha]

Your assertion that China won't attack it's biggest customer is false. When we had the problem with the poison pet food (courtesy of china) followed immediatly by the lead paint covered toys there was some small rumbling of economic or trade sanctions. China then threatened to dump American currency on the market, you know what that would do. As far as I'm concerned that was a declaration of economic war. Obviously I can't be in charge because that would have been the end of our trading relationship.

[Borjan]

I think you would be the best president ever. Really.

The problem is you would get assassinated by some interest group after three speeches. Okay, maybe four.

And then there would be another conspiracy theory regarding your untimely demise and it would turn out that ALL of those groups had killed you. Like in the "Murder In The Orient-Express" from Agatha Christie...

[the man in the trout mask]

I think rookbert got it right - a rich country could spend more on weapons of defense,thus deterring attack.
One exception is Switzerland - strong economically,little defense - but what would be the point of attacking Switzerland?
And,all things considered, North Vietnam DID attack and conquer a much richer South Vietnam.

[rita mae]

Tax Season. Bah Humbug.

Rita Mae

[Another Joel]

"... my first question would be whether it is a positive return on investment. That would be the opposite of good leadership, but it might keep the country safer and richer."

Actually, that *would* be good leadership. Scott Adams for president! Free cartoons for everyone, and pragmatic leadership-like qualities to boot. What's not to like?

[Dog of Justice]

"While that's not exactly true, its in line with your general idea, which could be rephrased to say no country without a McDonald's has ever gone to war with a country with a McDonald's and won."

Uh, please tell me you haven't already forgotten about Vietnam...

[Slap D. Monkey]

Vietnam? You could argue that the US didn't lose to a poorer, less advanced country because it wasn't technically a war. But we still got it handed to us.

[o2bnobx]

The ancient Greeks, a collection of tiny city-states, consistently defeated the Persian Empire, which at that time was the largest and most powerful state on the planet. The Greeks won battles because of some revolutionary ideas: that the individual had some worth; that each soldier fought for his homeland, family and his fellow soldiers (and not a divine despot); and that the rulers should in some way be accountable to the ruled. I highly recommend Victor Davis Hanson’s books particularly “Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power”. Sometimes ideas trump economics.

[Miguel]

If only countries always behaved in their best interests (so that game theory would apply)...

But nooo, you had to have your 'revenge', you had to have your 'I don't care if I die, provided that you die too!' attitude. Almost all presidents (specially that US guy, whose name I don't want to remember) are what game theorists call 'crazy', or in layman's terms, 'loonie', or with 'GWB syndrome'.

Who says you'd make a bad president?

[Lou]

If you haven't already, you should read the book "The Mouse That Roared." In a funny way, it describes something like this.

[Real Live Girl]

Hey! Aren't you someone smart? Why don't you flesh out that economic theory? Might be a Nobel Peace Prize in it for you. I hear you've always wanted one of those.

Lest anyone forget, the only reason we won our independence from Gr