Live data from Hacker News

Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

npr.org

31–40 of 171 posts

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean Russia definitely keeps losing very many soldiers every day, I don't think that is comparable at all. It's completely different from US vs Iran.

This comment epitomises one of the reasons why the US does not and cannot win any war against a peer adversary. Flawed data.

I don't even understand what this comment is supposed to be saying in relation to the previous one.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#32
post #7
post #2

In WW2 thousands of troops could die in a single day and we wouldn't know their names until months or years later. Today a single troop dies and it is the first story on the national news. Millions of civilians also died, just the amount of soldier deaths would be the equivalent of 2-3 September 11s (worldwide) every day for a period of 6 years. So we say "war" but modern conflicts are absolutely nothing compared to…

> send entire generations off to die methods of old Of old? Isn't that what Russia is doing right now?

No, they haven't implemented mass conscription, and won't because even autocrats can't ignore public opinion

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#34
post #18
post #11

First the meaning of "war" needs to be defined. FWIW, in the US, only Congress can declare war. IIRC, that really has not happened since Korea. Also since WW2, none of these countries posed a real danger to the US Public, plus people in the US are not invested. Compare what the public in the US had to do in WW2 compared to these "wars". If the life style of the Average US person is affected like in WW2, then you can…

A mobilisation such as what we saw in WWII is unthinkable because it'd crash markets. That's one reason.

That has nothing to do with it. Congress should still have to declare an operation like what is happening in Iran.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#35
post #2

In WW2 thousands of troops could die in a single day and we wouldn't know their names until months or years later. Today a single troop dies and it is the first story on the national news. Millions of civilians also died, just the amount of soldier deaths would be the equivalent of 2-3 September 11s (worldwide) every day for a period of 6 years. So we say "war" but modern conflicts are absolutely nothing compared to…

> single troop dies Really, now? What national news do you watch? I have literally never seen current/breaking news stories about the death of American troops in action. It seems literally the most silent thing going on. I really don't know--are casualty numbers reported on a regular basis, from the "front"? I would sometimes, after the fact, learn of repatriation flights or interment ceremonies for fallen soldiers.…

I’m fairly surprised you are not seeing them. As a test, I checked for US servicemember deaths in the Middle East in July 2026 and checked against my own recall from casual news consumption.

I knew of the helicopter crash (1) and missile attack (2). I did not know of the EOD accident (1) this weekend. So, 3 of 4 I knew about without any particularly directed effort to follow it (and the 4th, I’m sure I’ll see reporting about during the week but wasn’t consuming much content of any type over the weekend).

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#36
post #19
post #12

It's not exactly rocket surgery, is it? Because they are fighting on the other side of the world. I feel like the article glosses over this way too quickly. It's not surprising the US aren't winning. It's surprising they are at all able to do something that resembles waging war at that distance. Wars are incredibly hard to fight away from home. On the other side of the world? There is basically only one country in th…

> There is basically only ever one country in the history of ever that has been able to do that I guess you mean the British empire? Or Dutch? Maybe Spanish?

I was thinking of the British Empire. Their naval technology was superior enough to overpower the distance term.

I was under the impression the Dutch didn't really wage interstate war in the same sense, but rather that a bunch of paramilitary private organisations happened to fly Dutch flags. I have to admit I know very little about the Spanish case, but again I thought they mainly fought proxy wars with other European colonial powers, i.e. both were equally disadvantaged by distance.

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#37
post #19
post #12

It's not exactly rocket surgery, is it? Because they are fighting on the other side of the world. I feel like the article glosses over this way too quickly. It's not surprising the US aren't winning. It's surprising they are at all able to do something that resembles waging war at that distance. Wars are incredibly hard to fight away from home. On the other side of the world? There is basically only one country in th…

> There is basically only ever one country in the history of ever that has been able to do that I guess you mean the British empire? Or Dutch? Maybe Spanish?

And didn’t Genghis Khan more or less go to war with most of the known (and some of the unknown) world and for all intents and purposes win?

Re: Why is it so hard for the U.S. to win wars?

#38
... possibly due to the lying bumblefucks who start them. George W Bush was a lying bumblefuck who talked himself into being a war criminal who can't travel to certain countries. Trump is the kind of lying bumblefuck who lets a dependent bumblefuck that Netanyahu is to talk him into the dumbest and most embarrassing military engagement in US history of my lifetime, possibly only next to Grenada

npr, btw, is in some sort of decline in news source legitimacy having to resort to these simple-minded click bait headlines ...

Post reply on HN