How a preventable disaster killed six marines • Hacker News Board

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#61

Post by vonmoltke » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 3:02 PM UTC

eaandkw wrote: post #40

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Experience gained in the last 20yr in the middle east (Afghanistan in particular) indicates that what we traditionally consider "fighter" type aircraft are capable of delivering various guided munitions with sufficient accuracy and that time to location is highly important. Having dedicated CAS aircraft is nice and it's probably wise to keep something of that nature in service at all time but it's foolish to pretend…

This is the same type of argument that people make over programming languages or EMACS/VIM. You could provide CAS with just about anything that flys. However a good CAS vehicle should be able to fly relatively slow and be well protected from ground fire. The A-10 if perfect and I really wish there was a way to make new ones. I even heard at one point the USMC was thinking of bringing back the OV-10 Bronco.

> The A-10 if perfect

The A-10 is a death trap in a modern air defense environment. The USAF hasn't gone against one of those since Kosovo, and even back then it was all high-altitude fast movers and stealth aircraft dropping ordinance because of the threat of Serbian AD.

What the A-10 is perfect for is counter-insurgency, which is pretty much all the shooting action the US has seen since Kosovo. There's an argument to be made that, considering US engagements, a dedicated COIN aircraft is a good thing to have in the US inventory. It's a niche, though, and the US military is currently resistant to fielding niche systems.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#62

Post by goatinaboat » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 3:05 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #45

cafard wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pure oxygen may clear up a hangover, but as far as I know the body metabolizes alcohol at a fixed rate unaffected by oxygen, exercise, etc.

Seems reasonable that oxygen should affect metabolic rates.

Why? We give oxygen to injured people because their lungs are impaired. But you can’t force more oxygen into the blood than it can carry, it just doesn’t work like that.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#63

Post by blaser-waffle » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 3:07 PM UTC

bluntfang wrote: post #58

js8 wrote: post #35

Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely support them. Why? I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences. There are many plausible explanations, but no clear winner.

Because with a lack of explicitly hierarchy, an implicit hierarchy is created. I'm not sure of any social system that doesn't include some form of hierarchy, but am very inclined to read an opinion.

I am reminded of the video game company Valve. Famously without official hierarchies... but not according to former employees.

The difference is with formal hierarchies there is also formal authority and responsibilities. A lack of explicit expectations means that informal the leadership can shirk responsibility or invent authority.

And that's a software company; a military org that's ordering people into dangerous situations is going to have a much harder time without explicit authority; POUM in the Spanish Civil War comes to mind.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#64

Post by csours » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 3:09 PM UTC

dmos62 wrote: post #29

redis_mlc wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why not just leave all the flying stuff to the Air Force or maybe specialized parts of the Navy? The priorities aka politics of each military branch are different. Canonical example: At Guadalcanal in WW2, the Navy was supposed to land supplies and support the Marines, but when the Japanese Navy showed up, the US Navy weighed anchor and left - with most supplies still aboard. The Marines are still mad about that 75…

> when the Japanese Navy showed up, the US Navy weighed anchor and left I'm not even an amateur pacific theater historian, but I know that this story is more nuanced than that, and your implication that the Navy didn't cooperate sounds naive. It's true that the US armed forces suffer from high division. My canonical example is the retirement of A-10 in favor of F-35.

Of course it's more nuanced than that, but imagine you are a Marine on the beach. Do you care about the nuance, or do you care about seeing the ships leave with your supplies.

When I read history, I try to imagine it with at least 3 points of view - the individual soldier, the commander, and the whole conflict.

It is possible to take someone's lived experience seriously while still realizing that they don't have all the answers and they have biases.

We are largely the stories we tell ourselves. One of the stories that Marines tell is that they hold fast where others retreat. Semper Fidelis. I can hold a nuanced view and still understand their viewpoint.

(I am not a Marine, but I did just read Lewis (Chesty) B Puller's biography)

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#65

Post by goatinaboat » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 3:15 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #27

masklinn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being there quick is not useful when you do nothing of value and leave immediately though.

Experience gained in the last 20yr in the middle east (Afghanistan in particular) indicates that what we traditionally consider "fighter" type aircraft are capable of delivering various guided munitions with sufficient accuracy and that time to location is highly important. Having dedicated CAS aircraft is nice and it's probably wise to keep something of that nature in service at all time but it's foolish to pretend…

what we traditionally consider "fighter" type aircraft are capable of delivering various guided munitions with sufficient accuracy and that time to location is highly important

That is true but what is also true is that using expensive aircraft designed for near-peer conflicts for that mission burns through airframe hours at an unsustainable rate.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#66

Post by protonfish » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 3:36 PM UTC

js8 wrote: post #35

Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely support them. Why? I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences. There are many plausible explanations, but no clear winner.

I suppose it is because we have not found an organizational strategy that does not quickly break down into corrupt hierarchy.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#67

Post by JoeAltmaier » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 4:11 PM UTC

goatinaboat wrote: post #62

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems reasonable that oxygen should affect metabolic rates.

Why? We give oxygen to injured people because their lungs are impaired. But you can’t force more oxygen into the blood than it can carry, it just doesn’t work like that.

Our blood rarely carries all the oxygen it can. If its suddenly saturated, that means more oxygen throughout the body for metabolic purposes.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#68

Post by js8 » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 4:17 PM UTC

0xBA5ED wrote: post #47

js8 wrote: post #35

Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely support them. Why? I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences. There are many plausible explanations, but no clear winner.

>I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences This is not an open problem at all. It is a _well_ explained phenomenon.

> It is a _well_ explained phenomenon.

There are many partial explanations, but all of them are flawed.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#69

Post by js8 » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 4:17 PM UTC

protonfish wrote: post #66

js8 wrote: post #35

Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely support them. Why? I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences. There are many plausible explanations, but no clear winner.

I suppose it is because we have not found an organizational strategy that does not quickly break down into corrupt hierarchy.

That doesn't explain why people do not massively despise hierarchies in the first place.

Re: How a preventable disaster killed six marines

#70

Post by js8 » Tue, Dec 31, 2019, 4:19 PM UTC

ethbro wrote: post #43

js8 wrote: post #35

Hierarchical organizations have many flaws, yet humans continue to largely support them. Why? I think the question "why there are social hierarchies" is the biggest open problem in social sciences. There are many plausible explanations, but no clear winner.

That they have many flaws does not mean that they don't have strengths. For some use cases the strengths outweigh the flaws. Combat operations are certainly such a use case.

Not sure what you mean specifically, but this was not in a context of combat operations, where quick decisions were needed. There was plenty of time to address the complaints and fix the problems.