Lost in the discussion is the idea that the tank should not have a future, and neither should most weapons of war, because they are brutal inhumane killing machines from a past era that have no place in future societies - this is my view as a pacifist. My hope is that humans can move past the idea of war for settling conflict, otherwise what is the point of social norms like privacy, respect, and courtesy between people, when the same people in society can condone killing of their youth in war? In my view tanks are are a tool of war against the progress of society and I don't see that changing in the future.
Does the Tank Have a Future?
351–360 of 490 posts
Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a really charitable description. There was enormous political pressure in 1968 to find a way to end the draft since Nixon promised in the campaign that he would do it. When you tell people to go find ways to do it, especially when you're the President, they're going to find ways. The entire premise of the AVF at the time was that it would work fine, if you could still do a draft if you needed to . The Commissi…
> That's a really charitable description. No, it's just accurate to what's in the report. > The entire premise of the AVF at the time was that it would work fine, if you could still do a draft if you needed to. No, it wasn't. While the standby draft was in the report as a safeguard to slightly reduce the the from-0 spinup time of a draft, the argument presented is not “an AVF is non-harmful as long as backstopped by…
Again. I'm not contesting that these arguments exist and were in the report from back in 1968. (I'm going to ignore for a second that we don't actually do anything to rehearse a draft, standby or not, so yes we actually would have to build everything from scratch again.) I'm stating that there is no way the political direction from the White House to end the draft didn't influence what ended up happening, who got to write it, and what was in it. That does not detract from the arguments that you may find compelling, and that's fine. To your example, that we can just boost compensation to make up for not having conscription. How exactly do you do that if, say, you need an army of engineers to staff cyber warfare operations? Pay them $500k to put on a uniform, hoping that $500k is the "market clearing price" where someone decides "okay fine I'll quit my FANG job and go to war"? At some point the AVF starts looking like a contract Army, and not a functioning part of a republic, let alone an actual state military. The AVF is a libertarian dream, I'll grant you that, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's longer term effects haven't been bad and it couldn't use a rethink.
Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
And now advanced self-targeting hypersonic intercontinental ballistic missiles are going to soon usurp carriers. Just a few dozen launched from land will easily overwhelm any defense a carrier has. You know how everything in our lives is slowly becoming smart? This goes for all the weapons too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile
This made me chuckle. Not that it's impossible but that is quite hand wavey for a very tough technical challenge nobody is close to accomplishing yet. Sure. And carriers can simply launch their reusable hypersonic smart drone swarm shields and submerge underwater.
> And carriers can ... submerge underwater.
Not sure if you were serious or not, but:
Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see the Budapest memo referenced a lot but, obviously, it's a memo ... about ways to get rid of nukes. It's not a treaty that obligates anything at all from the United States or anyone else in terms of security support or guaranteeing Ukrainian sovereignty. I will grant, however, that the Ukrainians (and the Russians, we made promises to them in it too) probably feel pretty slighted with how history turned out in t…
Problem for US and rest of NATO is that Baltic countries ARE in NATO. Once Ukraine goes Vilnus is next. Is USA ready to fight a conventional war in the Baltics? With what manpower? Germany is utterly useless right now and will be for the foreseeable future, French army is way too small same with UK. Very soon you might have to go to the Nukes.. It is much cheaper and safer to fight this war in Ukraine rather then try…
I think what you mean to say is that "NATO is the United States, the rest of the countries are just members". That's not to knock, necessarily, the rest of the members - they've all made choices and assumptions about their own security. I agree, this is a problem, for many more reasons than the fact that only a small percentage of Americans know which country Vilnius is in, let alone where it is on a map.
>It is much cheaper and safer to fight this war in Ukraine rather then trying to liberate Lithuania
This is what I do not understand, the "safer" part. How exactly is it "safer" to intentionally antagonize the old Cold War adversary over a country that even President Obama admitted is not a strategic interest to the United States? To attempt to steelman this, we should support/arm/fund the Ukrainians as a means to degrade and destroy (by proxy) Russian combat power just in case they invade Lithuania next - or maybe to try and prevent them from being of use to the Chinese in a new Pacific War - knowing full well that they know invading a NATO country means WWIII in Europe (and probably the Pacific, who knows). This sounds awfully similar to the "we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" refrain that I heard all the time in the lead up to GWII and thereafter as we extended our stays in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it's the most compelling argument in favor of support I can come up with. I still think it's wrong, though.
Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?
#355The war in Ukraine doesn't provide sufficient evidence that modern combined arms operations are outdated. Russia deployed combat troops significantly short on man power, leading to a situation where attacks had far more armor than infantry. See https://warontherocks.com/2022/06/not-built-for-purpose-the-... for example. It's been known since the Spanish Civil War that tanks are vulnerable to anti-tank teams when not…
I hypothesize that the Taliban had it right all along.
4x4 Toyota Hilux trucks with some sort of heavy gun + a fireteam of infantry kitted out with 1x drone, 1x manpad, 1x atgm.
Far cheaper than a modern tank and far more mobile.
Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?
#356The war in Ukraine doesn't provide sufficient evidence that modern combined arms operations are outdated. Russia deployed combat troops significantly short on man power, leading to a situation where attacks had far more armor than infantry. See https://warontherocks.com/2022/06/not-built-for-purpose-the-... for example. It's been known since the Spanish Civil War that tanks are vulnerable to anti-tank teams when not…
Why you need a tank in 21st century: 1. When enemy has tons of artillery, and any light armour is doomed in open field 2. The only military unit capable of offensive operation during nuclear warfare For as long as nuclear weapons are there, there will be a need for an all-terrain nuclear bunker with gun.
How long does the crew survive in a nuclear environment?
They still have to refuel the tank and find food.
Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?
#357The tone of the article is a little hard to take seriously given that the legacy media are mostly now admitting that a Ukrainian surrender is necessary and that all Russian territorial objectives are likely to be met.
The more interesting question is if having the US as a credible security partner has a future.
Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
Way more expendable, can overwhelm with sheer numbers and can be much more reactive than something that has to be aimed and fired from far away.
I mean has it changed the calculus on the battlefield for tanks? Ukraine are pleading for, and using, mostly anti tank missiles to destroy Russia's tanks, aren't they? Why if swarms of expendable drones are better and cheaper?
I think it did pretty decisively in the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?
#359The war in Ukraine doesn't provide sufficient evidence that modern combined arms operations are outdated. Russia deployed combat troops significantly short on man power, leading to a situation where attacks had far more armor than infantry. See https://warontherocks.com/2022/06/not-built-for-purpose-the-... for example. It's been known since the Spanish Civil War that tanks are vulnerable to anti-tank teams when not…
I hypothesize that the Taliban had it right all along. 4x4 Toyota Hilux trucks with some sort of heavy gun + a fireteam of infantry kitted out with 1x drone, 1x manpad, 1x atgm. Far cheaper than a modern tank and far more mobile. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_War
Taliban technicals were failures when engaging NATO forces with air support. Larger tactical aircraft can remain at medium altitude (out of MANPAD range) and smash anything that moves with precision munitions.
Re: Does the Tank Have a Future?
#360The tone of the article is a little hard to take seriously given that the legacy media are mostly now admitting that a Ukrainian surrender is necessary and that all Russian territorial objectives are likely to be met. The more interesting question is if having the US as a credible security partner has a future.
If the US is not a "credible security partner" then what the media thinks about a Ukrainian surrender is utterly irrelevant. Even if is is a credible security partner, the same is true.
It's...I don't know what to call it except intriguing, the way you flip from a picture of the US as a totalitarian monolith with tentacles controlling everything, to the US as an utterly impotent former empire in shambles, unable to even be a "partner", within two sentences.
It's kind of an echo of the way Russia has been portrayed in the last few years.