Rise of the war machines: Charting the evolution of military technologies

Post by shepherdjerred » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 3:39 AM UTC

pasabagi wrote: post #22

wolverine876 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It serves another purpose: Deterring potential enemies and giving confidence to allies. For example, the US has contributed to international peace East Asia for generations in part by having underlying muscle available. And today, if the US military tech was removed, I have a hard time imagining that alliances with Japan, S Korea, and others, not to mention Taiwan's freedom, would survive.

Wait, what? Did you miss the bit where they bombed North Korea until they had killed about one fifth of the population, and destroyed basically every form of standing shelter? Or the war in Vietnam? Or the support for South Korean dictators, even as they murdered their own people? If that's a contribution to international peace, I hate to imagine what you'd think was a contribution to regional instability. Even on a…

Post by codr7 » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 4:17 AM UTC

shepherdjerred wrote: post #51

pasabagi wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, what? Did you miss the bit where they bombed North Korea until they had killed about one fifth of the population, and destroyed basically every form of standing shelter? Or the war in Vietnam? Or the support for South Korean dictators, even as they murdered their own people? If that's a contribution to international peace, I hate to imagine what you'd think was a contribution to regional instability. Even on a…

The US has done plenty of terrible things. It’s impossible to be certain of how much of the relative peace we have today is because of the United States. Overall I’d say it’s probably done more good than harm.

Post by chii » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 4:30 AM UTC

remarkEon wrote: post #14

enzino wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

your comment shows little knowledge of history. wars, historically, have been won by the parties with the strongest economy. that's even true for pre-historical conquests, as far as we know. ww2 was won by the midwest industrial base, and (mostly), the soviet's. check out the ussr industrial growth in the 30s. (they didn't have the fed wrecking havoc.) today there's no match for china, this is not even controversial.…

What. The US spent 20 years fighting goat herders with AK-47s, and lost. The CCCP did the same and also lost, albeit they left actually left when they realized is was a mess (with a little help from CIA, sure). There are other obvious examples. Economic might is a major determinant in how well you can prosecute a war but it is by no means the only thing that matters.

Post by ARandomerDude » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 5:34 AM UTC

enzino wrote: post #31

s5300 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mujahideen that turned into Taliban were literally trained by the CIA. Calling them goat herders is either ignorance, racism, or pushing whatever agenda you're trying to push. Unless you're specifically speaking of the lowest caliber grunts of their infantry, in which theirs are nearly the same as ours. Mostly uneducated cannon fodder. But yes, the US completely intentionally drew out the 20 years of war to put money…

One could think of rural hipsters with goats in america. I think characterizing Afghans as poor fighters was part of the propaganda push. "They're so weak, no way we'll lose." Turns out those goat herders have successfully expelled invaders since recorded history.

Post by nefitty » Sun, Oct 31, 2021, 6:01 AM UTC

aspenmayer wrote: post #56

narrator wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking of examples of food innovation aiding military campaigns, Napoleon's army was responsible for the development of canned food[1]. [1] https://unrealfacts.com/napoleon-bonaparte-role-canned-food-...

James Burke covers this in Connections, season one I believe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connections_(British_documenta...