Reference: "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen", by Frédéric Bastiat, in English [1] and the original in French [2] (Ce qu'on voit et ce qu'on ne voit pas)
> This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.
"The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth" "This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies"
How can both of these things be true?
And this Iraq war is but the latest addition of the many conflicts islam nutcases are waging. Outside of Iraq, there's Nigeria, Mali, Western Sahara, Sudan, China, Phillipines, Russia (basically the entire border of where muslims live geographically, actually).
I get the impression that what's really happening is that the US is no longer policing the world, the legacy it got from WWII. The old empires are in the same situation, and we're returning to the historical norm before that. That historical norm was 1.5 millenia of islam versus everyone else war, with more victims than any other conflict in history. Constant civil wars at the edges of muslim territories and regular genocides inside of it. The entire world, from morocco to close to south africa to deep in China (almost up to Hong Kong).
I guess what they mean is that for example, up until they were bought out, the main driver of independant robotics was the DoD. I guess that's what they mean. But outside of the US, Japan, China and Britain I doubt militaries are all that innovative. Hell, I don't know if they are outside of the US, point.