On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu> wrote:

And how well do that work out for him? He got sucked into russia with an over-extended supply line, and limited resources against an entrenched opponent with easy access to replenishment, and near parity in TL (up to parity by the turning point of the war).

I’d say the German invasion of Russia rather proves my point.

I'm not sure what your point was.

But the point I was responding to was Dave's point that a lack of economic resources is the usual motivation for invasion.

But after factoring in all incidental costs (such as maintaining a permanent garrison or the reputation one gets after committing the genocide necessary to avoid said garrison), trading for whatever it is always cheaper than invading to "simply" take it

So the economic reasons behind invasions are really psychological reasons: taking direct control of resources is perceived as intangible variable which justifies the vastly higher cost of invasion over trade.

[Phil's two replies above agree with this.]

The above being true, then it doesn't matter whether the OTU possesses relatively scarce basic resources or relatively plentiful ones. In either case, it's the intangible (and thus psychological) variable which matters, not objective reality.

Richard Aiken

"Never insult anyone by accident." Robert A. Heinlein

"A word to the wise ain't necessary -- it's the stupid ones that need the advice." - Bill Cosby

"We know a little about a lot of things; just enough to make us dangerous." Dean Winchester