= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
OrphanWilde comments on Is our continued existence evidence that Mutually Assured Destruction worked? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
Comments (67)
Far more loosely. Part of the object behind the complex network of alliances was to make war too costly to initiate. Once war was initiated, however, it was guaranteed to be on a massive scale. The damage done by WW1 is forgotten in consideration of the damage done by WW2, but it carried a substantial toll; around 33% of military-age British men died over a four year time period.
In both cases the nations involved were always one event away from total catastrophe.
It tends not to be forgotten here. Australia had far more casualties in the first world war than the second.
France also had more casualties in WW1, and may even loom bigger in our memories.
That seems likely. Absent any specific information to the contrary I expect 'looming' to approximately track casualties/population and by that metric France was over three times worse off than Australia.