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

The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

mwi.westpoint.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 701 posts

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#551

Post by user_7832 »

wahern wrote: post #525
pheaded_while9 wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing new under the sun. You fail to address my clear moral objection with these irrelevant historical instances. It has no rhetorical value in this context.

The point was just that gameification is just a modern word that doesn't reflect any change in behaviors. Presumably you were familiar with these practices under previous descriptors. And your moral objections would have been shared by many millions before you, long before gameification was coined. On the other side of the coin to thinking there's something new about the way war is waged are the people who think they…

I think something fundamentally new is not only the incentivisation directly affecting kills - as a top team/unit can iterate up much faster, unlike a soldier who could boast more kills, but still have the same rifle as his colleagues - but the layers and desensitisation overall.

Part of this probably admittedly isn't new, and likely started with drones, where you could kill someone in Iraq sitting in DC, on the other side of the world.

But now with both, being separated from the physicality, and the incentives via points (the same way arguably in app currencies are used in gacha games - "20 tokens for this character!" feels better than $40), this is way more similar to CoD or any other shooting game than it has ever been in human history, and by a significant amount.

Sorry for the rambley and extremely verbose reply but tbh it's absolutely horrifying and sickening to see as a fellow human, and I just wanted to get it out. (I'm obviously not saying Ukraine is wrong for wanting to protect territory - but it's the other aspects that are "awesome" (or awe-full?), in the wrong way of awe.)

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#552

Post by ExoticPearTree »

n4r9 wrote: post #535
ExoticPearTree wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get the sarcasm, but besides the US that for whatever reason might retaliate with nukes, who else? And would they risk it just because?

UK and France are possibly more likely to retaliate, given the proximity.

Retaliate for what? They wouldn't be attacked.

That's the thing I don't understand: why would they try to nuke Moscow if they weren't the ones attacked? And would they risk their own demise (considering the imbalance in warheads between them and Russia)?

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#553

Post by idiotsecant »

pheaded_while9 wrote: post #505
helsinkiandrew wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Units can also collect e-points to purchase more equipment: > The allocation changes regularly, but as of June 2025, Business Insider reported that destroying a tank was worth eight points. A multiple launch rocket system counted for 10. Killing a regular Russian soldier earned 12 points. Wounding a drone pilot was valued at 15 and eliminating him netted 25. In the final step, the payoff, units use the points they’ve…

Gameification of war is the literal worst thing I ever heard. Lords of War, eat your heart out.

This is silly. Elite units have always gotten better gear. If this is the part of war that causes you moral outrage I think you've got some rexamining to do.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#554

Post by squidbeak »

pheaded_while9 wrote: post #514
wahern wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing new about earning "points" for kills. Warriors have always tallied their kills and displayed their numbers, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victory_marking or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalping , though the rewards were typically accolades, and only indirectly access to more materiel.

There is nothing new under the sun. You fail to address my clear moral objection with these irrelevant historical instances. It has no rhetorical value in this context.

> Gameification of war is the literal worst thing I ever heard. Lords of War, eat your heart out.

What 'clear moral objection' did you make? You talk in cliches so it's hard to tell.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#555

Post by idiotsecant »

mschuster91 wrote: post #468
caycep wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they already have that, they want to make sure it stays that way alternatively, there's a Dennis Ross piece out pointing out that China's procurement patterns over the years suggests they are not seriously thinking of invading Taiwan, they just want everyone to think that way...

> they just want everyone to think that way That's the thing with religious or ideologically driven dictators. They're nutjobs, not beholden to reality in their decisionmaking but to whatever their ideology prescribes - and thus are prone to making decisions that seem to (or end up being) utterly stupid / irrational. With Yugoslavia, it was Tito's idea to force all the various countries into one common ethnicity. Wit…

It's wildly naive to think that dictators are 'nutjobs'. They are, without exception, shrewd political operators. You don't get to be dictator and stay dictator without a certain skill set, and part of that is having a good sense of which actions get you a bigger bank account and which ones end with your head on a stick.

They might be wrong like any human, but they aren't cartoon villains.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#556

Post by skhr0680 »

ExoticPearTree wrote: post #503
troupo wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. As soon as Russia nukes someone, the war instantly ends. Because no one will ever think to retaliate.

I get the sarcasm, but besides the US that for whatever reason might retaliate with nukes, who else? And would they risk it just because?

> And would they risk it just because?

Look up the reasons for both blocs in the Cold War withdrawing all of their (numerous) tactical nuclear weapons systems by the 1980s.

TL;DR: MAD and “escalation”

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#557

Post by throwaway27448 »

contubernio wrote: post #447
LinuxAmbulance wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I found it interesting that not even this article thinks about it that the US mainland ever can be attacked It can be, but it would be very, very difficult for anything short of lobbing ICBMs around. You'd have to have a fleet of ships that would be detected as soon as they set sail, and then protect that fleet for the entire voyage, which would also be extremely difficult for any adversary. Getting boots on US soi…

It could be attacked easily via an alliance with Mexico or Canada. The premise that such a thing could never happen is not a good one for military planning.

It seems more likely we'd attack ourselves

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#558

Post by lenerdenator »

lejalv wrote: post #488
lenerdenator wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are they sailing under the flags of nations who are combatants in this war, yes or no?

US base in a country that allows its use = country is participating in the aggression = legitimate target

That's not answering the question. Are these ships being targeted sailing under the flag of a belligerent nation? Yes or no?

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#559

Post by jandrese »

budsniffer952 wrote: post #481
marcus_holmes wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is working so well against Iran, right? Oh wait, no, the other thing.

Hilarious. You realize the US could nuke and flatten Iran tomorrow, right? Do you imagine that Trump was trying to conquer Iran and just couldn't do it with all the American military power? There is no scenario that Iran wins a war with the USA. They were trying to overthrow the regime, for the second time in a year, and failed.

> There is no scenario that Iran wins a war with the USA.

My god man, Vietnam vets are still alive. You can talk with them today. There is no reason to forget all of the lessons of the past.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#560

Post by QuercusMax »

lenerdenator wrote: post #558
lejalv wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

US base in a country that allows its use = country is participating in the aggression = legitimate target

That's not answering the question. Are these ships being targeted sailing under the flag of a belligerent nation? Yes or no?

What about all those fishing boats the US has been blowing up?
Post reply on HN