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

The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 339 posts

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#141

Post by anonymouskimmer »

epicureanideal wrote: post #111
bradrn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deveraux explicitly endorses (1) in the article: > If anything, I think cultural values have lagged, resulting in countries launching counter-productive wars out of cultural inertia (because it’s ‘the doing thing’ or valued in the culture) long after such wars became maladaptive. Indeed, I’d argue that’s exactly what Russia is doing right now.

[flagged]

This doesn't explain the Chechen conquest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_evolution_of_Russi...

Russia had nukes, they had no existential reason to worry about NATO.

The key element in all of this is Putin. Not NATO.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#142

Post by cyberax »

marianatom wrote: post #110
newuser94303 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that China has any interest in conquering the rest of World. They just want to be rich. They are stealing IP and spying. The fact that the US needs to use military force is a failure of policy. Violence is the last resort of the incompetent. I think that China is pulling on the US what the US did to the Soviet Union. The US bankrupted the Soviet Union with an arms race. China is doing it much more econo…

There are so many wrongs with your statements that I don't know where to start. I'll just tackle one of them. "build a high speed rail network", implying that US is failing there. China is suffering from a $1 TRILLION debt for its rails https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Markets/China-debt-crunch/C... , while ridership collapses https://japan-forward.com/weak-demand-for-chinas-high-speed-... . Cities in China are suffe…

The thing is, debts are just numbers on paper at the end of the day. You can erase them, but the infrastructure will remain.

Erasing debts wipes out (most) savings and hurts rich people. So it's not something that can be done lightly, but it is an option.

Also, Chinese HSR ridership is back up after COVID restrictions were lifted.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#143

Post by mcguire »

nerdponx wrote: post #63

I'm surprised to hear the author state that war is more destructive than in the past. Is that actually true? Certainly we are more capable of destruction than in the past, but modern millitaries have put a lot of effort into being less broadly destructive, unless they specifically intend to broadly destroy things. Photos of bombed-out cities in Syria are jarring, but even the worst devastation there doesn't look as b…

"It is really quite hard for ancient or medieval armies to do meaningful long-term damage to an agricultural economy; farmers flee, crops are hard to destroy and in any case armies can’t do anything to the land itself. [...] Even a sustained collapse might mean something like only a 25% reduction in total production; by contrast Liberia lost 90% of its GDP in just six years of internal warfare from 1989 to 1995."

Now, I could pick some nits with that: crops are not that hard to destroy. But that just results in a few years of famine. On the other hand, a proper counterexample would be the Thirty Years War, but I don't know what the actual long term consequences for the northern German economy were.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#144

Post by jandrese »

avgcorrection wrote: post #99
jandrese wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Corrupt relative to democracies, or really just most other countries in the world. And historically the Russian/Soviet army has always underperformed for its size, their notable successes have generally been due to being able to crush their opponent in sheer mass of conscripted bodies. Cases where having a lot of people don't help, like ships and aircraft, often end in embarrassing defeats against far smaller foes. A…

> Corrupt relative to democracies, or really just most other countries in the world. I’ll reiterate. You described it as something that Putin caused (in part). > The one that is backed by historical evidence: widespread corruption rotted the organization from the core. Putin is running his country like the world's largest petro-Mafia, with poor internal controls that allowed for a widespread looting of the state's as…

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make? Putin is corrupt and as a result his military underperforms. Historically the Russian and Soviet systems were rife with both corruption and military losses. This was my original point.

Putin may have inherited a corrupt system, but he certainly didn't do anything to rectify the problem and most likely made it worse.

He is actually very lucky that the world has been relatively peaceful during his reign, it appears an ambitious Japan could have bitten off a chunk of Russia if they wanted to and his military would have been at a disadvantage trying to stop them. Putin also got very lucky that the rest of the world didn't get involved in the invasion of Crimea, but that seems to have made him cocky and now he's tipped his hand and blown his bluff.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#145

Post by lisasays »

pphysch wrote: post #132
lisasays wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amassed the next largest land army in Europe, trained by NATO, armed by NATO, .. Utter BS, both in terms of raw numbers and contextually -- in "eliding" the fact that they were invaded by a certain neighboring country in 2014. As you are perfectly aware. Please stop posting nonsense like this.

Yes, Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea induced NATO to heavily militarize Ukraine. Were you not aware of this? It was kept quiet, but not exactly secret. > Since Crimea was annexed in 2014, the U.S. and partner militaries have helped grow Ukraine’s forces from just over 100,000 troops to nearly 250,000 [in 2017]. Just since January, Capt. Christopher’s unit of 250 soldiers has added another 3,000 or so Ukrainian sol…

The language in your post (particularly where you say "over a decade") misleadingly suggests that there was significant buildup pre-2014. And that poor, frightened Russia has just reacting the way any country would, in response to this imagined buildup.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#146

Post by akkartik »

pdonis wrote: post #120
akkartik wrote: post #55

My only quibble with this article: it fails to apply its own conclusions to the US. The balance of evidence (Pentagon procurement processes and cost overruns of major projects) shows the US military too has a significant paper component.

Where does the article claim this is not the case?

For one, it's alluding to other countries but not really holding up the US in much of the article.

Second, this quote at the end:

> Consequently, I suspect Russia is not the only paper tiger out there; the forest is likely to be full of them.. the exceptions are likely to be.. or because they form the backbone of an international system which requires that someone carry a big stick (the United States).

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#147

Post by ProjectArcturis »

tester457 wrote: post #139
13of40 wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remember how the US went into Afghanistan with HMMWVs (aluminum bodied cars with canvas doors) and M16a2s (full length battle rifles with iron sights) and left with MRAPs and A4s. You learn stuff when you switch from training to combat.

Why the change? What lessons were learned?

MRAPs: you need better defense against IEDs.

M4: a short barrel is easier to use in close quarters fighting, and this outweighs the loss of accuracy at longer distances.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#148

Post by dotnet00 »

epicureanideal wrote: post #111
bradrn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deveraux explicitly endorses (1) in the article: > If anything, I think cultural values have lagged, resulting in countries launching counter-productive wars out of cultural inertia (because it’s ‘the doing thing’ or valued in the culture) long after such wars became maladaptive. Indeed, I’d argue that’s exactly what Russia is doing right now.

[flagged]

I wonder what it says about a country's intentions if they feel threatened enough to kill tens of thousands of innocent people over them shifting towards joining a defensive alliance.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#149

Post by alvarezbjm-hn »

epicureanideal wrote: post #123
Benjammer wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If you would just do what I told you, you wouldn't get hit!" Big yikes here...

That's not at all what I said. What do you think about the video I linked? Also, analogies to dysfunctional interpersonal relationships don't represent the dynamics of many-party international competition very well.

"If the USA had not continued to expand NATO eastward (especially the discussion of making Georgia and Ukraine part of NATO in 2008), a few hundred thousand Ukrainians and Russians would still be alive and Crimea would still be part of Ukraine."

Yes, you did say that. Russian response was overkill, but you didn't mention Putin there. Clever.

Re: The impact of the ‘long peace’ on modern military capabilities

#150

Post by epicureanideal »

dotnet00 wrote: post #148
epicureanideal wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I wonder what it says about a country's intentions if they feel threatened enough to kill tens of thousands of innocent people over them shifting towards joining a defensive alliance.

> defensive alliance

I almost spit out my coffee I laughed so hard.

That's how the alliance markets itself, but that's not how everyone in the world, especially their potential adversaries, perceives it. And its potential adversaries have been saying so, publicly, for decades.

As I'm sure you understand, all military alliances, even if they start out defensive in nature, can easily become offensive in nature.

> if they feel threatened enough

Exactly, they felt threatened, because they did not and do not perceive NATO as a defensive alliance.

I highly recommend watching the videos I linked in my earlier comment.

Post reply on HN