U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#61

Post by dools » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 8:27 AM UTC

hitekker wrote: post #52

dools wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Awesome I'd never heard of 'war is a racket', thanks! In return let me reccomend "the ruses for war" by john quigley and confessions of an economic hitman (and others) by john quigley as well as "a game as old as empire" with foreward by the same.

Thank you in return: judging from google it seems like Quigley can teach the nontrivial stuff.

Indeed! And once you're through with that check out Modern Money Theory by Randall Wray which puts the whole shitfight into a solid economical context!

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#62

Post by npunt » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 11:28 AM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #60

npunt wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe pj_mukh was referring to asymmetrical warfare in the style of Stalingrad being what is more common nowadays rather than before. Regardless, we got a clear picture of the cost and lack of result of such a strategy from the last 15 years, so the idea that this time will be different has a very high burden of proof.

Ummm... no. The last 15 years have been anything but a full-scale war-to-the-knife strategy, ala WWII. While the United States may not be willing to do that sort of thing, others may (cough...Putin, aka the honey badger of heads of state). Also, such policies have a way of changing if the perceived threat level becomes high enough, as the former inhabitants of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden could attest. I am not a…

Apologies I was only trying to give benefit of the doubt to pj_mukh's comment. Tho 100 years is a stretch, he does have a point about the past ~60. I believe we're saying the same thing aside from that distinction.

Also, I was generalizing from Iraq. We didn't do such a great job holding that.

This thread is ultimately about military intervention in a place that could be charitably called a total f'n mess, in order to wipe out a terrorist group we helped create from the last total f'n mess we made in the region. Compounding that is the modern challenge of a highly connected world in which every intervention down to the smallest altercation can be caught on video and propagate, creating strife and leading to future acts. Whether or not the territory has been held in the past, the option is not realistically available to us now, nor do we wish to hold the territory, and nor is there a qualified group that could fill the power vacuum that would result if we intervened in a serious way.

I don't think Honey badger Putin (btw hilarious) can afford to commit necessary resources to secure Syria in any meaningful way either. Maybe if oil was trading in the $100s and he didn't have Ukraine to worry about, and it was far earlier in the conflict.

We obviously have to keep the problem contained with use of both military and non-military means (cut off ISIS $$ for one), but ultimately have to accept that getting mixed up in this is nuts.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#63

Post by sago » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 1:24 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #48

sago wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine A risk which is orders of magnitude smaller than the risk that you or your loved one will perish in your car. Smaller even than the risk you'll choke on your next meal, or harm yourself putting your pants on tomorrow. > the choice is between doing nothing It really isn't. The alternative to bombing…

"A risk which is orders of magnitude smaller than the risk that you or your loved one will perish in your car." By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free since the chance of being murdered is less than the chance of dying in a car wreck? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. People, in general, don't think that way.

> By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free

Perhaps you should read what I said, because I specifically said what I feel should be done.

But if you want the facile analogy, then at least stay with the question being addressed. We do not, for example, bomb areas with high numbers of murderers in them. There may be some LEOs who kill potential murders without due process of law, but it is not a tactic we should endorse. In general we respond to murder through the justice system, as we should.

The choice isn't doing nothing. That's just a straw man used by people who make a false equivalence between not agreeing with them and capitulating. You can make your own position sound very reasonable if you exclude the middle.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#64

Post by Turing_Machine » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 2:30 PM UTC

sago wrote: post #63

Turing_Machine wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A risk which is orders of magnitude smaller than the risk that you or your loved one will perish in your car." By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free since the chance of being murdered is less than the chance of dying in a car wreck? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. People, in general, don't think that way.

> By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free Perhaps you should read what I said, because I specifically said what I feel should be done. But if you want the facile analogy, then at least stay with the question being addressed. We do not, for example, bomb areas with high numbers of murderers in them. There may be some LEOs who kill potential murders without due process of law, but it is not a tactic we…

I did read what you said. I just found it unserious and at odds with the way that human beings actually think, in particular your claim that the amount of relative risk is what should dictate the response.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#65

Post by sago » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 3:47 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #64

sago wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By that reasoning, we should just let murderers go free Perhaps you should read what I said, because I specifically said what I feel should be done. But if you want the facile analogy, then at least stay with the question being addressed. We do not, for example, bomb areas with high numbers of murderers in them. There may be some LEOs who kill potential murders without due process of law, but it is not a tactic we…

I did read what you said. I just found it unserious and at odds with the way that human beings actually think, in particular your claim that the amount of relative risk is what should dictate the response.

> at odds with the way that human beings actually think

I don't doubt that, but that is no reason to suggest we let our base instincts dictate policy. The way that human beings tend to think about lots of things is problematic. We can do better.

Terrorism tries to use fear as a political tool, where democratic forms of influence would not succeed. It is used because it is very successful: we are so scared of a very small risk that our national politics revolves around it.

The president today said we "will not be terrorised", the irony is astounding.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#66

Post by pj_mukh » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 7:13 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #51

pj_mukh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter. The wide mass spread of ideas worldwide is what makes the 'idea' more potent than anything ground troops could go door-to-door to kill. We have to face it, we cannot shoot and bomb our way out of this. The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century.

"Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter." Okay, now you're just trying to spin. Naked force has settled more issues ("solved more problems", as you put it) than any other human activity. "The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields." What they had was an opponent willing to carry out a policy of utter destruction. ISIS doesn't have such an opponent. Yet.

ISIS is not an opponent that will meet you out on a big field. They don't care if its USA or Russia. What they would rather have is Russian and American troops invading. They'd love that. Film it all, post it up on twitter to convert a large swath of the population that is 'on the fence' to join their death cult. A show of naked force is EXACTLY what they want, because it means they WIN.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#67

Post by pj_mukh » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 7:23 PM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #55

pj_mukh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter. The wide mass spread of ideas worldwide is what makes the 'idea' more potent than anything ground troops could go door-to-door to kill. We have to face it, we cannot shoot and bomb our way out of this. The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century.

P.S. With respect to "battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century" Umm...Stalingrad? 1943? Dude, I really think you need to read some more history, and I'm not saying that to be condescending. Your grasp of historic events seems to be a little hazy. Also, for some reason both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. thought the Fulda Gap was quite important, right up to the fall of the Soviet Union in…

D-day would've have been a more apt a comparison for a war out on the naked field with full blown charges. There was definitely an evolution of warfare (to more asymmetrical styles) in WW2 when compared to WW1 (which I was comparing as my 'century' mark) and its Passchaendale-like battles.

Either way, if you had taken the time to not just focus on such a 'Eurocentric' view of history, you would have brought up Sri Lanka and its take down of the idea of Tamil independence (I don't condone this), but they did successfully take down and all but obliterate the Tigers using pure ground naked force. It is the one example I can think of (I'm sure there are more outside Europe), where a ground force was able to neutralize a virulent idea. However, they had the advantage of having a localized idea (i.e. people outside South India and Sri Lanka didn't care), in which case a ground war was more effective.

Islamism is an idea with global reach. Cannot bomb an idea with global reach.