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

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

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 171 posts

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

#91

Post by copper4eva »

It's kind of complicated, because a lot of these are kind of political wars. Where the goal of the US is to not simply defeat the enemies, such as in WW2. They want to minimize civilian casualties and cause a regime change. Not always the easiest thing to do.

They half succeeded in creating South Korea. They succeeded in Iraq, which I like to always point out because that war is often cited as a "loss" for the US. Mostly because Bush declared it over when it was really just beginning.

Really hard to say what will happen with Iran. Everyone online likes to act like military prophets that know the future, but truthfully it's very difficult to predict imo. And what does happen depends probably on how deep the US invests into it. If they start sending troops in to invade, then that obviously changes things.

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

#92

Post by jimnotgym »

I wonder if part of the problem is impatience? Trying to conquer whole countries at the same time? Britain didn't take India in one go. It got concessions to trade from a port, then took over the port. Consolidated its power, then took the the next one. You need a bunch of powerful locals to see how they are better off with you there.

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

#93

Post by copper4eva »

ReptileMan wrote: post #73
watwut wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also USA is very sensitive about the other side's civilian deaths. Its literally bragging about the oposite while intentionally killing civilians.

In Iran USA has killed 1/4 of a civilian for every enemy combatant. That is unprecedented by any war level.

[dead]

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

#94

Post by SanjayMehta »

spwa4 wrote: post #82
bojan wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia's goal is direct annexation of about quarter of the Ukrainian territory and installing a lifelong puppet regime to control the other three quarters. Ukrainians stand to lose not just their voice and any semblance of economic prosperity, but also their very identity. With the exception of extreme cases like Gaza, it doesn't get more binary than that.

Russia's goals have far evolved over the course of the war, and started out comically ridiculous, prompting a great many people to ask questions about the information "bubble" around Putin. Over the past year, I believe most people would agree Russia has lost a LOT of ground when it comes to their war aims, even if not that much territory. 2014: seize Crimea (success, although it no longer serves any purpose) and Sev…

When did Russia ever state they would accomplish all this in 3 days?

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

#95

Post by jongjong »

dudefeliciano wrote: post #81
jongjong wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The goal is to sell weapons during the war; then afterwards, sell loans to rebuild what the weapons have destroyed... And sometimes it's also to control access to natural resources or trading routes. They don't care who it is who facilitates them on the other side of the ocean; be it a dictator or an 'elected' official. The lobbyists running the show in the background make money from both the destruction as well as t…

it's stupid because there are ways of turning a profit without killing thousands of people while turning your own country into a pariah ridiculed by the whole world. It's stupid because it's shortsighted.

I want to see it that way too but it seems they've been winning for a very long time with this approach. So is it short-sighted?

The way I see it there is a deep systemic issue beneath this which makes this profitable. That's the flaw which has to be solved.

Private entities should not be able to profit from taxpayer money on such vast scales. Military contacts are massive, foreign aid is massive. It takes from a large number of public hands and gives to a small number of private hands. Diffuse harms, concentrated gains.

I hope you're right though and those issues will be fixed.

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

#96

Post by SanjayMehta »

dralley wrote: post #31
SanjayMehta wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Look at the body exchange ratios between The Ukraine and Russia.

Jan 29th: 1000 - 38 Feb 26th: 1000 - 35 Apr 9th: 1000 - 41 May 15th: 526 - 41 Jun 18th: 522 - 33 Jul 16th: 501 - 31

Total: 4549 - 219

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

#97

Post by mewpmewp2 »

dralley wrote: post #31
SanjayMehta wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean I guess I disagree with the fact that it has any truth about being a "special military operation", when it is really an invasion where a country is trying to gain territory using ground forces etc. It's an invasion and a war, they wanted the binary outcome, they just didn't expect the opponent to push back so strongly.

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

#98

Post by spwa4 »

SanjayMehta wrote: post #94
spwa4 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia's goals have far evolved over the course of the war, and started out comically ridiculous, prompting a great many people to ask questions about the information "bubble" around Putin. Over the past year, I believe most people would agree Russia has lost a LOT of ground when it comes to their war aims, even if not that much territory. 2014: seize Crimea (success, although it no longer serves any purpose) and Sev…

When did Russia ever state they would accomplish all this in 3 days?

For example: https://www.rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/speci...

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

#99

Post by mewpmewp2 »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #57
enopod_ wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Ukraine it's very much an existential war. If they lose, Ukraine will cease to exist. The only way of winning is, well, winning this war. It is also very much a real war, with hundreds of thousands of deaths on both sides, a true massacre not seen in Europe since WW2. Trumps stupid war on Iran on the other hand is really just some air strikes, and Iran can win by just not losing, which is easy, because the US wil…

It's interesting how casually we replace concern for the population with concern for the political entity. No, the Ukrainian identity will not cease to exist with the replacement of the political entity.

What Russia has done in the past is take people who want to hold onto their old national identity and send them to labor camps far away where most will die, and migrate Russians to the areas so as generations go by Ukrainian identity would be fully gone.

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

#100

Post by criddell »

Georgelemental wrote: post #32
criddell wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Not sure if the numbers are correct, but it looks like the number of Russians killed in Ukraine is about the same as the number of Americans killed in WW2. Does it matter if the state uses a carrot or stick to send a generation off to die?

These may be rookie numbers for Russia, but it's still significant.

Post reply on HN