On 12 Oct 2004 at 13:57, Brice Yokem wrote:

> I am only repeating what Albert Speer said in 1946, when asked what
> would have hurt the German war production the most.  I don't think
> this is on-line, but try -

Consider to whom A.S. was speaking, the circumstances under which he
was speaking, and what he may have thought warranted under the
situation.  Even if he was quoting from contemporary German bomb
damage assessments we must recall that at the time of the first
American raids against German industry Speer was fighting for control
of the German war economy inside a political system that at best
could only be described as chaotic.  It is unlikely that he would
have under played the threat that such attacks posed given the
authority such consideration would lend his arguments.  The other
side of the coin that Speer does not voice is that the USAAF could
not sustain their losses in these raids, which was the main reason
for discontinuing them.

This highlights an inherent fallacy implicit in such claims, the idea
that circumstance will remain the same.  In practice this is rarely
the case, some form of defensive response is always the consequence
of an emergent threat to a newly exposed weakness. This creates
essentially a new environment requiring a different approach.

To give a current example, if present energy sources are cut then
alternative energy sources are found.  They may not be as inexpensive
or as convenient or as plentiful as present supplies, but as long as
the sun rises they will be found. Equipment designs will be altered
to use less of the scarce resource. These items may be more expensive
or less convenient than the equipment they replace, but they will
suffice.

If steel or other important metals are lacking then designs will be
created to take advantage of alternative materials.  Again, the
results might not as beneficial as the desired materials could
provide, but they will prove acceptable over a broad range of
employment.  Modern industrial states are far too resilient to be
brought to their knees by exploiting a single structural weakness in
their economies.

--

***     e-mail is NOT a secure channel     ***
James B. Byrne                mailto:ByrneJB.<token>@Harte-Lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited          http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive              vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario             fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3CE               delivery <token> = hal

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *