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

Can you read your own writing?

> 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.

What does any of this mean? You think everyone in the military gets the same gear and capabilities and support? You think incentives don't exist in the military? You think rewards for units that are more lethal in war is a new phenomena? You don't think layers exist in the military to ensure that most people do not have to fight at the tip of the spear, and those that do get constant support from other elements? What are you talking about?

> 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.

Oh ok so it's not new? But it "likely" started with American drone use in Iraq or something. Ok, explain to me how this started then? Why is the analogous situation? Because you see the word "drone" in the same sentence? Are you not aware much of human innovation around war is not putting yourself at risk when attacking an adversary? This is basically intuitive. Why did it start here instead of in the first conflict where tribes of men were beating each other to death with sticks before someone invented the sling or the arrow? Please tell me what version of combat you find most humanizing.

> But now with both, being separated from the physicality, and the incentives via points...

Um except they aren't separated from the physicality? It's people invading their own land? How can you make a claim about being separated physically or the "physicality" and from "incentives" and think pointing out their country is being invaded is a time to ask "And what does that have to do with anything I was talking about?" What species of logic is this?

You: They are separated from the physicality and the incentives via points (the same way arguably in app currencies are used in gacha games[...]

Me: Well no, it's not really like that at all. I mean their country is being invaded. Their families are dying. Their friends are dying. They liberate towns and find dead civilians. They endure bombing on their own civilian infrastructure. How on Earth could that be separated from the "physicality and incentives" re warfare? How could you ever compare going through that to a video game?

You: And what does that have to do with anything I was talking about?

Um buddy have you been playing too many of these games? What are you talking about?

I'm sorry how close do you want them to get? Are all attacks from the air dehumanizing or gamified? At what range does the humanization kick in? It's "CoD" unless what the Ukrainian runs across the frontline with a club to bludgeon a Russian to death? How many drone videos have you watched? Is your claim a Ukrainian would be less likely to take the opportunity at a clear shot at a Russian via a rifle than with a drone? Because they would fear for their humanity? Do you know how humans about to be blown up by a drone act? Suddenly the Russian invader is not so aggressive. And how are they separated from the incentives? You mean the incentive of stopping an army from invading their land and ending their nation and having domination over their families? The "points" is a scrappy formalization of a system. You think a Ukrainian soldier needs "points" to want to defend his country? Gee if I wasn't about to get this CoD style achievement I'd probably just let him go?

> So you're saying this war isn't the closest we've been to a gamified war perhaps ever in human history?

Yes, of course I'm saying that. The closest we've come "gamification of war" is having to suffer people like you who clearly don't know anything, can't read their own writing, regurgitate other people's think pieces and talk about a conflict that you are separated from with clear casual indifference and frankly, ignorance. The Ukrainian story is a deeply human one of ingenuity and courage in the face of a stronger, dominating, existential adversary. Their drone program is a big part of this.

The rest of your reply is shallow nonsense ("world hunger", "grown adult", clear cheap rhetorical tricks - inventing an argument that was never made to justify your abysmally lazy takes) like mate, just read your own writing. You're comparing people being invaded to a CoD game. Your acting like an American operating a drone in Baghdad is somehow something like what's happening in Ukraine? Hello, Iraq was not invading the United States? If you're an American drone pilot your family is not being bombed or evacuated. The average American drone costs what, easily 100x more? If not double that? These are people slapping together consumer parts in dire circumstances so their country can be free. And you are just regurgitating this just deeply grating Western privilege style of frankly, uncritical blither about "gamification" and Obama era think pieces that only someone who has not seriously asked how their society would handle an existential invasion could manage. All while not being able to look in the mirror. You're the gamification. To the people in Ukraine, it's not a game. Everything about what they are doing re drones and and combat is consistent with their position in asymmetric, existential conflict. How is an American drone operator in any way related to that? Again because you saw the word "drone"? What else is similar? You think the American drone operator has the same disposition vis-a-vis his targets as a Ukrainian? Is that your claim? How could that possibly be the case? Which is more or less gamified? Let's hear it.

Why don't you actually attempt an answer to that question. I would love for you to actually defend any of this instead of inventing more straw men arguments. Let's see if you can actually defend a single sentence you put forward.

Or does it all boil down to a general indifference?

> I'm talking about "Shit, it's bad to dehumanise war even more".

Perhaps this theory of "gamification" appeals to you because it's simply the soup you swim in. Why don't you "act like an adult" and actually attempt a defense of your own words. Or concede you erred. Where is the "nuance and maturity"? I'm not seeing it. Explain the "multiple things at issue". Let's hear it, please. Are you going to defend your statements or is "shit war sucks" and an inapplicable recitation of other people's thoughts on gamification and drones really the best you can do?

Speeches only show projected intent.

This is easily proven false. See my above comment about both the UK SOF operations and the US flights of weapons. The info is well documented and sourced.

Engineers became really jaded by Shuttle and the failure o X-33. Many of them, inappropriately, started claiming it was impossible. You still hear people claiming things are impossible today that are “merely” very hard, like full reuse, getting launch costs same order of magnitude as transpacific air freight, orbital datacenters, terraforming Mars, space settlement in general, travel to other star systems, etc.

Maybe, but I wish people in these conversations would sometimes point out that China is also dependent on imports to continue to make the stuff it makes.

China is a heavy importer of petroleum, food and fertilizer. A modern economy needs petroleum to grow food and to deliver food to consumers. Although China is wisely trying to replace that dependence on petroleum with electric vehicles, it has not yet succeeded. If there's ever a sustained shortage of food, Chinese young men are likely to start revolting and rioting like they've done dozens of times in Chinese history in response to food shortages. China relies on foreign nations for approximately 75% to 80% of its total iron ore consumption, making it the world's largest importer. Despite having had semiconductor manufacturing self-sufficiency as a top national priority for many years, it is still the case that Chinese smartphone manufacturers rely heavily on Samsung and TSMC for the SOCs that go into those smartphones -- and MediaTek (Taiwan) and Qualcomm (US), not Chinese firms, design most of those SOCs.

Geopolitical strategist Peter Zeihan argues that the United States is the only major global power fully capable of national self-sufficiency. I.e., if global trade is ever disrupted by world war, the US would be able replace its missing imports much faster than China would be able to.