From FP Magazine
"Leveling the Battlefield"
"What's the best way to assess a country's ability to wage war? Apparently, its wages may be a good clue. Countries with greater economic equality [think modern day France and Germany] are far more likely to emerge victorious in conflicts than less egalitarian ones, according to a new article in the British journal Defence and Peace Economics. By examing the outcomes of two dozen conflicts in the second half of the 20th century, the authors found that the combatant nation with a more equitable distribution of wealth prevailed in 74 percent of wars. They then analyzed 80 additional wars stretching back to 1816. Using historical texts to determine the degree of social stratification, they found that the more socially equitable side won 80 percent of the time.
The link between military prowess and equality may stem from several factors: military solidarity in a popular army, the fact that militaries in unequal societies are often distracted by quashing internal dissent [hmmm I wonder.....], and the existence of a poor fifth column in less egalitarian nations thay may sympathize with enemy."
[Now we know the rally round of what they're calling these people, currently, in the states. But the point is if they exist it is a symptom of economic disparty which in turn could be a symptom of a sunsetting world power. Anyway to take this discussion further one can attempt enforce rules of stratification inorder to attempt to prevent the cracks in vase from happening but its an economic problem that will not be solved by dolling out punishment to those less economically fortunate much to the elites and sympathyzers of the elites (I wanna be like you too) dismay. So rounding up people that goverment does not like and have its agencies do well nasty to things them, might be amuzing to those who work at such agencies, but such practices will not result in anything more than what the Roman Coloseeum did for another sunsetting word power. Cheap thrills. Cheap thrills. Its a nice distraction from that which truely matters.]
On with the story.
"But, significantly, evidence that more equal combatants generally triumph complicates the belief that free-market economic policies are likely to spell military dominance, argues James Galbraith, an economist with the University of Texas, Austin, and a coauthor of the study. Modern Israel, for example, has experienced an enormous increase in inequality in recent years, a development that, Galbraith notes, coincides with a sharp decline in the country's military effectiveness, as seen during its indecisive confrontation with Hezbollah last year. "The more we neglect the values of quality and social solidarity," says Galbraith, "the more that will be reflected in difficulty prevailing in military contests." In other words, how much a nation struggles on the battlefield may be determined simply by the number of its people struggling to get by."
I'm liking Soros more and more.
Now which one is a person in the developed world, well, lets just say US most likely die of. MRSA or smallpox?