Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

journals.plos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 71 posts

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

#61

Post by pasabagi »

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.

You have to sort of narrow down 'today', though - in europe, you can argue US influence was a source of peace in the post-war era. In east asia, the post-war era was actually extremely bloody.

I think the one thing east asian states tend to have in spades is pragmatism. The US, on the other hand, is very often engaging in the region for ideological reasons. For that reason, it has tended to engage in bloody, somewhat pointless wars that have often span out into civil wars in neighboring states (Cambodia, for example) or produced traumatized, basketcase states (North Korea, for example, or pre-revolution South Korea).

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

#62

Post by anonporridge »

enzino wrote: post #2

One has to wonder how much of military "tech" is simply fake. Until its use is demonstrated in war (which i absolutely do not advocate, and is known to affected by propaganda as well), all the incentives from weapons' manufacturers and buyers are to exaggerate features and effectiveness. The main victim is the gullible public, who funds the military-industrial complex with taxes.

I think that's partially why the United States is perpetually in some kind of war.

If you're the global superpower with an empire built on military might, you have to constantly practice your craft, and nothing beats the real thing.

And putting your capabilities on public display in a real theatre provides the entire world with the proof of violence (PoV) you are able to summon.

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

#63

Post by anonporridge »

rogereur wrote: post #12

I think wars in the future will be about who's better at computer science. It will be programmers vs programmers, and computer literacy will become the new military service and a national security interest

I think it will be more psychological.

Memetic warfare.

Hell, this kind of war has been raging for decades.

Most people just don't know it.

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

#64

Post by aspenmayer »

nefitty wrote: post #59
aspenmayer wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Wow, this might be one of the best Wikipedia pages I've ever encountered. Thanks for linking it!

You’re welcome! Enjoy the show! You can find it on YouTube. It may also be on Internet Archive and the usual places.

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

#65

Post by nradov »

PeterisP wrote: post #50
yellow_postit wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

satellite sabotage/hijacking/repair is a field I would foresee parallel accelerating development in. The critical path for comms and vision when paired with drones makes leo a likely playground but with the fun dynamics of many amateur astronomers being able to watch what’s going on.

In some sense, drones can replace the earlier usage of satellites, especially for countries which do not have a surveilalnce satellite fleet - satellites grant visibility of the battlefield without needing air superiority and risking your pilots; drones do the same. An in a major conflict, it's likely that the big players can take out each others' satellites (and those can't be replaced quickly/easily) but drone swar…

The small drones cheap enough to be used in swarms are very short range. They're useful for tactical intelligence but hardly a replacement for satellites.

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

#66

Post by wolverine876 »

kqr wrote: post #58
codr7 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

War is peace?

No. The threat of war looming over 40 something countries for 60 years has kept them from going to war with each other, at the cost of having to go to war in a handful of countries for some years. The country-years of war in the region between 1950 and 2010 could potentially have been in the order of 1000s, but has been in the low 100s. I'm not saying US threat of war did actually prevent a lot of smaller wars in the…

> The threat of war looming over 40 something countries for 60 years has kept them from going to war with each other

It's more the promise of security. War comes from insecurity (or for a few among non-democratic countries, the desire to take something from someone). The US security guarantee for Japan, S Korea, etc. meant that they could act with security.

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

#67

Post by shepherdjerred »

codr7 wrote: post #53
shepherdjerred wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

War is peace?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana

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

#68

Post by kqr »

wolverine876 wrote: post #66
kqr wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. The threat of war looming over 40 something countries for 60 years has kept them from going to war with each other, at the cost of having to go to war in a handful of countries for some years. The country-years of war in the region between 1950 and 2010 could potentially have been in the order of 1000s, but has been in the low 100s. I'm not saying US threat of war did actually prevent a lot of smaller wars in the…

> The threat of war looming over 40 something countries for 60 years has kept them from going to war with each other It's more the promise of security. War comes from insecurity (or for a few among non-democratic countries, the desire to take something from someone). The US security guarantee for Japan, S Korea, etc. meant that they could act with security.

A threat of war over one country is security for all of its neighbours.

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

#69

Post by TooSmugToFail »

wikidani wrote: post #40
remarkEon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I’ve been waiting for a full reading of last year’s Armenian/Azerbaijani conflict but haven’t seen anything that runs down the full event. Any links? Thus far I’ve found some YouTube or other video clips. Looking for a more technical exploration of how that tech was used.

I believe there's a fairly comprehensive report on the Bayraktar TB2 and its use on this blog [oryxspioenkop.com]. You might want to check out popular front on instagram as well

Great source, thanks!

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

#70

Post by FromHoiPolloi »

enzino wrote: post #49
FromHoiPolloi wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USSR was perfectly capable of wrecking havoc on itself without the fed. While the Soviet evacuation of it's industry to the east was impressive one must not forget the massive aid the USSR received from the western allies.

You mean those "allies" who signed a non-aggression pact with them and then proceeded to discharge on them the largest amount of explosive material ever in the history of warfare? (Sadly that record held for only a few months.) Because those guys were well funded by the Western banksters.

No. I mean the support USSR received from USA after the German attack. A third of trucks used by the Red Army where US made A third of soviet airforce was US made. US also sent a lot of high octane fuel needed for the airplanes. A significant amount of food.

It is very likely that the USSR would not win if not for the US material support.

Post reply on HN