Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Sort of. The social context has changed completely, though. In WWI war was still considered a glorious adventure for which the elites were particularly suited. New technologies like the machine gun, tanks, and poison gas would make sure any conflict would be quickly resolved. Given the glorification of conflict and woefully inadequate knowledge of how much risks had increased going to war seemed to many Europeans at the time like the most obvious and glorious choice.

Then came the horror of it all and Europe's upper classes had their youngest and brightest massacred and values changed. Warriors were now ordinary suckers and the elites kept themselves above the churn. War became a business of calculated leverage. It on that massive change in context that we changed together to deciding that war is not always such a good idea.

Then on top of that conflicts like those Vietnam and Afghanistan merely emphasize the baseness and poor value return of armed conflict. What was a sure thing before WWI was a daring bet in the nuclear age an nukes were only one factor involved in that calculation.

War didn't end following nukes or WW2 - only overt war between nations with nukes ended. The Cold War is the best example of this. The one and only reason the Cold War was not World War 3 was because of nukes. If places like Pakistan and North Korea were not nuclear powers - they would have long since been Libya'd.

Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact