Assume a long and large-scale war (say, 30 years long) was fought between two large interstellar polities (one about a sector in size, the other several sectors in size). Ceasefire was eventually agreed on, and, eventually, a proper armistice treaty and trade agreements. How long until both states will demobilize large segments of their armies? Until their economies will gear towards peacetime production? Until politics will stabilize in areas conquered by one from the other?
How quick is post-war recovery?
- Thread starter Golan2072
- Start date
I guess that will be the easiest part. After all, the war weary society will desire it, after 30 years of fighting (at least in the zones really affected by the war), but, OTOH, zones where the military industry has grown will try to delay it...
This will depend on the extend of destruction. Naval industry will probably be diverted to comercial hulls, but not being really too affected (after all, comercial shiping is likely to have been reduced due to war/privateers losses, and reconstruction will need high shipping capacities.
Other industry would have to adapt, and each kind of industry will have its problems and opportunities (e.g. energy weapons industry is likely to be able to adapt quite easily to electronics for reconstruction).
For áreas conqueres son in the war, after 30 years (a full generation) i guess stabilization will be almost done. If areas were comnquered in the end of the war (or ceded as spoils), people there can hold grudges against the conquerors.
It will also depend on de extent of the destruction and the recovery plans. If the area was devasted, my guess is that, unless fanatics (and then they will not be so conquered, as they would be full of guerrillas), anyone really begining reconstruction would be accepted by the population at large (even if some groups would try to sabotaje it). The difficult part would be to make sure reconstruction effort is not diverted by corruption (after all, wars and post-wars are good terrain for it, if we have to take history as example).
mike wightman
SOC-14 10K
How sincere are the two polities over the armistice agreement?
If it is a weak peace then both sides are probably very wary of demobilisation, they may even be using the lul in hostilities to consolidate and rearm.
If the peace agreement is sincere and can be proven to be stable, then a couple of years would be required for both sides to believe the other is demobilising and sticking to the agreement. Then five to ten years to readjust the polity economy from a wartime to peacetime economy.
If it is a weak peace then both sides are probably very wary of demobilisation, they may even be using the lul in hostilities to consolidate and rearm.
If the peace agreement is sincere and can be proven to be stable, then a couple of years would be required for both sides to believe the other is demobilising and sticking to the agreement. Then five to ten years to readjust the polity economy from a wartime to peacetime economy.
What kind of war was it?
Other than large scale, was it total war targeting civilian centers of production or was it limited, focusing on the other side's military and industrial war making capacity?
A total war would probably destroy the population and the means of production so you've got to build up both before you can properly start a recovery.
A limited war where the means of production or civilian industry is intact you might have a different problem. As production switches over from war work to civilian work you might find you're over capacity which results in unemployment.
Generally demobilization happens quickly. No government wants to keep paying troops that aren't fighting.
Thirty years of total war: I'd say up to 150 years until you've fixed everything and the that generation feels no economic effect from the war (The UK government only recently agreed to stop paying off the loans taken out for their wars against Napoleon).
Thirty years of limited war: maybe ten years until you rebuild your army and reestablish economic sovereignty that doesn't have to take account of what the former enemy might be doing.
Demob depends on the size of the armies and post war commitments. Demobilization might not mean the war machine comes to a stop. Post WW2 many countries kept national service or conscription in place even as the actual size of the military shrank.
Other than large scale, was it total war targeting civilian centers of production or was it limited, focusing on the other side's military and industrial war making capacity?
A total war would probably destroy the population and the means of production so you've got to build up both before you can properly start a recovery.
A limited war where the means of production or civilian industry is intact you might have a different problem. As production switches over from war work to civilian work you might find you're over capacity which results in unemployment.
Generally demobilization happens quickly. No government wants to keep paying troops that aren't fighting.
Thirty years of total war: I'd say up to 150 years until you've fixed everything and the that generation feels no economic effect from the war (The UK government only recently agreed to stop paying off the loans taken out for their wars against Napoleon).
Thirty years of limited war: maybe ten years until you rebuild your army and reestablish economic sovereignty that doesn't have to take account of what the former enemy might be doing.
Demob depends on the size of the armies and post war commitments. Demobilization might not mean the war machine comes to a stop. Post WW2 many countries kept national service or conscription in place even as the actual size of the military shrank.
epicenter00
SOC-13
I think regardless of the kind of war, both nations are going to want to demobilize their militaries and military-oriented production as soon as possible. Governments can't really afford wars; the longer it goes on, the deeper in debt the government goes to pay for the war.
Similarly, peacetime production is going to happen regardless of if the industries want it or not. If they've managed to get to the point of "peace" the government again, simply cannot keep buying spending stuff on the military; it's hugely expensive.
Political stabilization can be a long or short time. It depends on the nature of the identity of the people living in the areas that have switched sides. If they identify strongly with their former empire they might resist for decades or even centuries. If they identify as independent, they might similarly resist for decades or centuries. If they don't really have a strong "identity" they might simply see the power switch as the change on the flag in front of the post office, particularly if the local power structures and the new masters are willing to work with each other.
Ummm - roll 3d6, multiply by 2d6, then subtract 4d6??
That is an awfully broad question. Actually, that's three awfully broad questions.
"How long until both states will demobilize large segments of their armies?"
Anywhere from within weeks to never. The fact that there are still two sides after a 30 year war between one sector and a polity covering several sectors speaks to factors not mentioned that have somehow kept that one sector alive or, dare I say, given them the victory. Who won? What triggered the war in the first place? How much do they really hate each other? How many times has this happened before, and are the people generally tired of it or are they angry and resentful at the outcome and biding their time for a rematch?
"Until their economies will gear towards peacetime production?"
Anywhere from months to never; see above for the reasons. And, if they do, the effort could trigger an economic collapse, or it might trigger a boom. And an imbalanced outcome - a boom on one side with a collapse or malaise on the other - could set the stage for the impoverished side to start gearing toward war again, if for no other reason than to distract the unhappy populus.
"Until politics will stabilize in areas conquered by one from the other?"
Anywhere from a few years to never - especially if a follow-up war occurs. Even if it doesn't, it could turn into one of those Northern Ireland situations.
Ultimately, I think the answers are variable enough that you can choose the one that suits you and justify it as easily as any of the alternatives.
SnichtheWalrus
SOC-6
Government
Depends of the type of government and how strict the laws are. Is the economy centrally planned?
Depends of the type of government and how strict the laws are. Is the economy centrally planned?
Having thought about this in the past, does anyone see a massive influx of ship hulls into the commercial sector after such a conflict?
From a 2300 perspective, would a large-scale mobilization/industrialization for a war or an actual war followed by ceasefire/settlement, result in a significant amount of hulls finding their way onto the market?
My instincts (and setting) indicate yes but any reasons why this might not be the case?
From a 2300 perspective, would a large-scale mobilization/industrialization for a war or an actual war followed by ceasefire/settlement, result in a significant amount of hulls finding their way onto the market?
My instincts (and setting) indicate yes but any reasons why this might not be the case?
reasons for no surplus
How destructive was the war? there may be barely enough ships left for defensive purposes after two empires grind each other to a near standstill. or production may have been running at such a level that there are piles of surplus hulls that are sold off for jobs they aren't really suited to. I'm thinking of the AVRO York airliner, a conversion of the Lancaster bomber from WW2 - converted bomb bays don't make comfortable passenger accommodation.
How advanced was the equipment? Governments can get twitchy about their latest gear falling into the wrong hands, even if ostensibly bought for peaceful purposes by legitimate businessman with discernible links to foreign governments... sometimes they prefer to just mothball it in a desert rather than sell it.
If you want a pile of surplus equipment, it's easy to rationalize, but so is the opposite.
How destructive was the war? there may be barely enough ships left for defensive purposes after two empires grind each other to a near standstill. or production may have been running at such a level that there are piles of surplus hulls that are sold off for jobs they aren't really suited to. I'm thinking of the AVRO York airliner, a conversion of the Lancaster bomber from WW2 - converted bomb bays don't make comfortable passenger accommodation.
How advanced was the equipment? Governments can get twitchy about their latest gear falling into the wrong hands, even if ostensibly bought for peaceful purposes by legitimate businessman with discernible links to foreign governments... sometimes they prefer to just mothball it in a desert rather than sell it.
If you want a pile of surplus equipment, it's easy to rationalize, but so is the opposite.
I think a lot of the recovery is going to be slow or fast, depending on how much of either's resources and the paths to market are damaged or not damaged.
If they can get resources to planets who now don't have much in the way of resources, those damaged planets will recover faster. If their resources are damaged over a wide area of solar systems, recovery will be much slower for those solar systems who are a long way from undamaged ports.
If they can get resources to planets who now don't have much in the way of resources, those damaged planets will recover faster. If their resources are damaged over a wide area of solar systems, recovery will be much slower for those solar systems who are a long way from undamaged ports.
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
What speeded up Japan's recovery was the Korean War, and the fact that the US needed to have a lot of items produced in Japan to avoid the lag time and cost of shipping across the Pacific. Drop tanks for the F-86 Sabre were one of the big items, but that meant getting Japan's aluminum production back up along with metal forging and stamping. For aluminum production, that meant getting Japan's electric power industry and transportation network back online.
As for Germany, the Marshall Plan that put Europe back on its feet, not just Germany, was the direct result of the confrontation with Russia starting in 1948, accentuated by the Berlin Blockade. A fair amount of the military production of France and the UK was done under the Mutual Defense Assistance Program. NATO (effectively the US) needed German bodies and production to help stop what was assumed to be the inevitable USSR invasion, which was presumed to likely occur in the late 1950s. I would recommend a reading of DROPSHOT by Anthony Cave Brown.
I vaguely remember the Marshall Plan with a few newsreels, still had them in the central part of the US into the 1950s, stating it was to rebuild Europe to prevent the spread of communism. I remember there were a few people in the small town I grew up in saying something about meddling in European affairs, but most thought it was a good idea as they hoped it would prevent another world war.
I knew the U.S. had helped Japan rebuild after the war, but not the extent. I think there were more people in my area who didn't care to help Japan after the war, their reason being Pearl Harbor.
I saw a documentary years later about the Marshall Plan, and that the Soviets, i.e. Stalin, was getting more and more suspicious of the West.
I knew the U.S. had helped Japan rebuild after the war, but not the extent. I think there were more people in my area who didn't care to help Japan after the war, their reason being Pearl Harbor.
I saw a documentary years later about the Marshall Plan, and that the Soviets, i.e. Stalin, was getting more and more suspicious of the West.
Yes. Russia had lost millions under the Emperor in wars, then World War 2 killed millions more. Lenin didn't want Stalin in power, and as it turns out he killed millions more in cleansing, and devoted the Russian recover to military buildup. So we could say 30 years. East Germany only recently started seeing what we Westerners would consider economic growth.
Factors brought up so far include these keys; amount of devastation, length of war, scale of war, economic impact of the war, surplus for the public to use (remember all the military equipment for commercial shipping and jeeps!), death tolls, who is left in charge, and resources for the rebuild initiative.
Factors brought up so far include these keys; amount of devastation, length of war, scale of war, economic impact of the war, surplus for the public to use (remember all the military equipment for commercial shipping and jeeps!), death tolls, who is left in charge, and resources for the rebuild initiative.
Reading it again and thinking about it, I guess 30 Years War would make a better example tan WWII for this recovery, as both the lenght of the war and the communications/transport times are more similar to what the OP suggested (as communication/transport in XVII century are more like Traveller's than those of post WWII time).
And it took quite more time for central Europe to recover than after WWII...
And it took quite more time for central Europe to recover than after WWII...
Timerover51
SOC-14 5K
The area hardest hit in the 30 Years War was Germany and northern Europe. I would argue that it took about 90 years to recover, with the ascension of Prussia and Frederick the Great.
Similar threads
