• AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Used to be called starting a war. It’s working for Russia but you really need to have a draft/conscription to make it succeed. The wealthy pay a doctor to say they have bone spurs and the poor go die somewhere else. As a plus some wealthy benefit from an overheated military industrial complex

    But there are side effects, such as generating more poverty by killing off the main income in families

    • isleepinahammock@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 day ago

      That worked well enough back in ye olden days, but you don’t see it much in the modern world. Winning a war isn’t just about having enough people on the front line. It’s about what kinds and what quantities of weapons and equipment you can get to people that matters. A tiny country with a small population and an advanced industrial economy will wipe the floor with a country with an army of peasant conscripts 10x as large. Keeping the people in uniform equipped and fed is even more important than actually finding people to put into a uniform.

      This matters because every person you send to the front line is another that can’t be on the home front working at a munitions plant, or working on a farm, or driving a train to transport war supplies, etc.

      Unless your economy already has structural mass unemployment, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Every draftee you throw away into the meat grinder is one more that can’t be supporting the war from the home front.

    • morphballganon@mtgzone.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      Starting a war only kills certain demographics, namely young poor people, as well as anyone who lives in a place that gets bombed.

      Police handle other demographics.