the fact that capital is vastly easier to destroy than it is to create
Capital is also easier to capture than it is to create. Your argument looks like saying that it’s better to avoid wars than to lose them. Well, yeah. But what about winning wars?
we’ve already sort of engineered a global scenario where “The West” … never attack each other
In which meaning are you using the word “never”? :-D
The problem is that asymmetric warfare, which is the best way to win a war, is the worst way to acquire capital. Cruise missiles and drones are excellent for winning without any risk at all, but they’re not good for actually keeping the capital you are trying to take intact.
Spying, subversion, and purchasing are far cheaper, safer, and more effective means of capturing capital than violence.
As far as “never” goes—the last time any two “Western” countries were at war was World War II, which was more or less when the “West” came to be in the first place. It isn’t the longest of time spans, but over time armed conflict in Europe has greatly diminished and been pushed further and further east.
The problem is that asymmetric warfare, which is the best way to win a war, is the worst way to acquire capital.
The best way to win a war is to have an overwhelming advantage. That sort is situation is much better described by the word “lopsided”. Asymmetric warfare is something different.
Example: Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Spying, subversion, and purchasing are far cheaper, safer, and more effective means of capturing capital than violence.
Spying can capture technology, but technology is not the same thing as capital. Neither subversion nor purchasing are “means of capturing capital” at all. Subversion destroys capital and purchases are exchanges of assets.
As far as “never” goes—the last time any two “Western” countries were at war was World War II, which was more or less when the “West” came to be in the first place.
That’s an unusual idea of the West. It looks to me like it was custom-made to fit your thesis.
Can you provide a definition? One sufficiently precise to be able to allocate countries like Poland, Israel, Chile, British Virgin Islands, Estonia, etc. to either “West” or “not-West”.
Depends on the capital. Doesn’t work too well for infrastructure and human capital, and the west has plenty of those anyway. What the west is insecure about is energy,and it seems that a combination of diplomacy, threat and proxy warfare is a more efficient way to keep it flowing than all out capture.
The example of von Braun and co crossed my mind. But that was something of a side effect. Fighting a war specifically to capture a smallish numbers of smart people is frought with risks.
Capital is also easier to capture than it is to create. Your argument looks like saying that it’s better to avoid wars than to lose them. Well, yeah. But what about winning wars?
In which meaning are you using the word “never”? :-D
The problem is that asymmetric warfare, which is the best way to win a war, is the worst way to acquire capital. Cruise missiles and drones are excellent for winning without any risk at all, but they’re not good for actually keeping the capital you are trying to take intact.
Spying, subversion, and purchasing are far cheaper, safer, and more effective means of capturing capital than violence.
As far as “never” goes—the last time any two “Western” countries were at war was World War II, which was more or less when the “West” came to be in the first place. It isn’t the longest of time spans, but over time armed conflict in Europe has greatly diminished and been pushed further and further east.
The best way to win a war is to have an overwhelming advantage. That sort is situation is much better described by the word “lopsided”. Asymmetric warfare is something different.
Example: Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.
Spying can capture technology, but technology is not the same thing as capital. Neither subversion nor purchasing are “means of capturing capital” at all. Subversion destroys capital and purchases are exchanges of assets.
That’s an unusual idea of the West. It looks to me like it was custom-made to fit your thesis.
Can you provide a definition? One sufficiently precise to be able to allocate countries like Poland, Israel, Chile, British Virgin Islands, Estonia, etc. to either “West” or “not-West”.
Depends on the capital. Doesn’t work too well for infrastructure and human capital, and the west has plenty of those anyway. What the west is insecure about is energy,and it seems that a combination of diplomacy, threat and proxy warfare is a more efficient way to keep it flowing than all out capture.
Depends on the human capital. Look at the history of the US space program :-/
At the moment. I’m wary of evolutionary arguments based on a few decades worth of data.
The example of von Braun and co crossed my mind. But that was something of a side effect. Fighting a war specifically to capture a smallish numbers of smart people is frought with risks.
Opportunistic seizure of capital is to be expected in a war fought for any purpose.