Live data from Hacker News

A violently true depiction of what war really is

mediumdifficulty.com

91–100 of 264 posts

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#91

I am very tempted to flag this. the sociopath thing really rubs me the wrong way -- there are logical flaws with using that label. War is a part of society. If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath. Having said that, it's a great first-person account of what real combat is like, at least for this one guy. I am concerned the effect on HN discussion will be negative. Hopefully I'm w…

Great post. I too noticed that the author's "combat experiences" seemed to be more about relating the experiences of his friends than his own personal thoughts and feelings.

The best analysis I've seen about the combatant are the works of LCol. Grossman. On Combat and On Killing are outstanding pieces of work that say pretty much the exact opposite of W here.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#92
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Civilized society? Yes, of course. It came to existence when Ghengis Khan united nomadic tribes but so did the countries in Europe -- Franks were a confederation of tribes, Poland was founded by a tribe subduing its neighbours, etc, etc. That is how civilization is born. If it wasn't for that they wouldn't be able to reach Europe. That is why we call them the Mongol Empire.

Oh c'mon. If you define civilized society that broadly than anything capable of organized warfare is by definition a civilized society. It would be a pointless tautology. In that context my response that systematic murder is uncivilized (and that therefore a society that engages in systematic murder is an uncivilized society) becomes a direct contradiction in terms. So that's obviously not what I meant. When I speak…

[deleted]

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#93
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> War is part of society? To barbaric ones maybe. Civilized societies don't settle disputes by mass murder. It's quite the opposite -- only civilized societies can have the kind of logistics, range, military culture, ability to support the warrior class (or standing armies), and numbers to engage in organized warfare. Conflicts between small bands of foragers can hardly be even called war. Not to mention mass murder…

I present to you: Ghengis Kahn. 40 million people died as a result of his campaigns. Civilized society? Not at all. Just organized tribal warfare. > Actually, poor kids seem to be enlisting at lower rates (relatively) to richer kids Huh. I stand corrected.

> Civilized society? Not at all. Just organized tribal warfare.

The story may be a bit more nuanced that that:

From a review of "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World"

(http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/reviews/genghis-kha...):

"Arguably, however, Genghis Khan and the Mongols were the dominant force that shaped Eurasia and consequently the modern world. Not for what they destroyed – though they wrought much destruction all over the continent – but for what they built. They came close to uniting Eurasia into a world empire, and in so doing they spread throughout it technologies like paper, gunpowder, paper money, or the compass – and trousers. They revolutionised warfare. More lastingly, in the word's of the author: ' ...they also created the nucleus of a universal culture and world system. (...) With the emphasis on free commerce, open communication, shared knowledge, secular politics, religious coexistence, international law, and diplomatic immunity.' ".

http://www.amazon.com/Genghis-Khan-Making-Modern-World/dp/06...

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#94
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also a guy who left the gov't military to become a "private military contractor". He's a lifer and sometimes you have to try to bring everyone to your level by casting them as "sociopaths" in order to sleep at night. We do it for real, time and time again, with no other motivation but pay, leave, and the chance to brutalise whomever we deem the “enemy”. scary.

Yeah, the guys who aren't PMCs are doing the same thing except for the "dulce et decorum est" reasons instead of the cash. People don't sign up for the military because they really think it's sweet and fitting to die for one's country, they sign up for the military because it's how they get into college or out of their shitty 2000 person town. I dated a girl who served, one day when I was ranting about recruiters wor…

Yep, but it's a shame that was the only option available.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#95

Street fights and other violent encounters are the same. There is no honor, no right way to fight and nothing good comes out of it except you surviving. It's nothing like video games - martial arts won't help (well, beyond helping keep you in shape), a bullet will kill you in a horrible, slow way (dying instantly means you're lucky) or leave you with a disability for life, a simple knife slash will leave you in a hos…

>martial arts won't help This is patently false and completely ridiculous. Someone who is trained to take and give a hit will always have a significantly better chance in a fight.

Someone who is trained to take and give a hit will always have a significantly better chance in a fight.

All the judo skills in the world aren't going to help you when a guy 100 meters away tears a plate-sized hole in your back with Mr. 5.56.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#96

I am very tempted to flag this. the sociopath thing really rubs me the wrong way -- there are logical flaws with using that label. War is a part of society. If society tells you to go kill somebody and you do, you can't be a sociopath. Having said that, it's a great first-person account of what real combat is like, at least for this one guy. I am concerned the effect on HN discussion will be negative. Hopefully I'm w…

Great post. I too noticed that the author's "combat experiences" seemed to be more about relating the experiences of his friends than his own personal thoughts and feelings. The best analysis I've seen about the combatant are the works of LCol. Grossman. On Combat and On Killing are outstanding pieces of work that say pretty much the exact opposite of W here.

On Combat and On Killing are outstanding pieces of work that say pretty much the exact opposite of W here.

This might be because W is an intelligent Brit who enlisted as a private solider.

Grossman is an intelligent American who accepted a commission.

Different experiences, different cultures.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What games? MW and the like, or the hypothetical game he was describing?

Any type of game where you shoot another human being is F*d up. The hypothetical scenario where you can accidentally kill innocents does not justify the game.

So, paintball? Because I don't know of any video game where you shoot another human being.

I do know of plenty of games where you "shoot" blocks of pixels. And I assure that I'm perfectly capable of distinguish them, both at a rational and emotional level.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#98
post #94
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the guys who aren't PMCs are doing the same thing except for the "dulce et decorum est" reasons instead of the cash. People don't sign up for the military because they really think it's sweet and fitting to die for one's country, they sign up for the military because it's how they get into college or out of their shitty 2000 person town. I dated a girl who served, one day when I was ranting about recruiters wor…

Yep, but it's a shame that was the only option available.

There is another option: the public university system. In most states, it's very cheap (re: you can work to pay for it), especially given financial aid.

Now, many high schoolers do not consider this to be an option for them (i.e., not the "learning" type). Figuring out why that happens to so many people is a harder question.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#99

I like one point in particular that he touched on. That is, the military's careful manipulation of the media and public perception and the lens through which we view military personnel. I know I'm supposed to laud infantrymen as brave and patriotic (which is why I'd never voice this in public), but frankly..nearly every frontline veteran I've ever met seems like an uneducated, violent and scary thug. I know that's ba…

but frankly..nearly every frontline veteran I've ever met seems like an uneducated, violent and scary thug.

I never went to war, but I was a rifleman in the Marines, spent eight years there.

One thing I've noticed about me, and other guys like me, is that you'd never know on first acquaintance that I was a Marine. Commonly heard: But you don't look/act like a Marine!

I suspect you've met more so-called 'frontline veterans' than you think.

Re: A violently true depiction of what war really is

#100
post #93
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I present to you: Ghengis Kahn. 40 million people died as a result of his campaigns. Civilized society? Not at all. Just organized tribal warfare. > Actually, poor kids seem to be enlisting at lower rates (relatively) to richer kids Huh. I stand corrected.

> Civilized society? Not at all. Just organized tribal warfare. The story may be a bit more nuanced that that: From a review of "Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World" ( http://www.diplomacy.edu/resources/books/reviews/genghis-kha... ): "Arguably, however, Genghis Khan and the Mongols were the dominant force that shaped Eurasia and consequently the modern world. Not for what they destroyed – though they wro…

>> Civilized society? Not at all. Just organized tribal warfare.

> The story may be a bit more nuanced that that:

Make that a lot more nuanced:

(From the same review cited above):

"The Mongols' was the first modern army. It was built on a rational structure (based, like the Roman legion, on units in the multiple of tens) and promotion was strictly on merit. Thoroughly disciplined and highly mobile – infantry was unknown – it could execute complex tactical manoeuvres in silence upon orders from centralised command. Speed and efficiency in conquest were their trademark, and the source of the fear they struck in the enemy. Horse and bow where the Mongol warriors' strength – and it the end their weakness. Forests hindered the deployment of mounted armies, in the humid heat of India the bows failed, and the horses' strength faded when they could not find pastures in the Syrian desert.

Warfare technology and logistics were other factors in the Mongols' superiority. The gunpowder formula was changed to yield explosive force, rather than slow burn as in fire-lances and rockets. Guns and cannon were developed. Specialised troops of craftsmen were skilled in building complex siege machines from local materials – obviating the need to move them over long distances. They perfected sapping of walls, thus making static defence impossible. A dedicated medical corps looked after the wounded. The army and its horses spread across the plains for forage and sustenance, thus obviating for the need for supply lines – yet a sophisticated communication system based on melodies to ensure accurate memorisation allowed the scattered troops to regroup at short notice and to remain in touch with the distant leadership.

The intelligence system was second to none, and the Mongols knew much more about the lands they were about to invade than the defenders knew about the Mongols – if nothing else because the latter lived off the land and needed to know where water and pastures were to be found. In addition, the Mongols developed highly sophisticated methods of psychological warfare, spreading rumours about their cruelty and destruction. This unsettled the rural populations that then fled before the advancing army, hamstringing the defence efforts."

Post reply on HN