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

141–150 of 171 posts

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

#141

Post by rbanffy »

usrnm wrote: post #19
kqr wrote: 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?

Don't forget the Portuguese. They were a superpower thanks to their investment in maritime technologies.

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

#142

Post by rbanffy »

mcbrit wrote: post #117

This Kind of War (reading list Marine Corps commandant 2026 Vietnam War) suggests the answer is that the US fought crusades through WW2. Then they got Korea; not absolute war, not a crusade. And the US had no reference frame for that. Who is winning and why and why are Americans dying for this?

> why and why are Americans dying for this?

This last one is to distract people from the Epstein files. And, maybe, get some oil as well.

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

#143

Post by rbanffy »

sanderjd wrote: post #113
expedition32 wrote: post #22

The question should be "why is it so hard for the US not to start wars". America didn't have to do this. And now they cry that nobody is helping them.

Who is crying about that? You just mean the administration? If so, then sure. But Americans at large aren't under any illusions about whether anyone would or should be helping with this.

I've heard more than one complaining that Iran was an everybody problem because "nuclear weapons" and that the US is doing all the heavy lifting.

I usually reply to that with reminding them Obama solved the problem and that Trump destroyed that accomplishment out of spite.

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

#144

Post by rbanffy »

IAmBroom wrote: post #108
fg137 wrote: post #46

Is the US expected to win wars? We all know how Vietnam went. Maybe consider that before asking the "why" question? Is Russia expected to win wars? And I would rather see none of these stupid wars start in the first place.

What a strange comment. Are you saying no one expects the US to win a war? Or that no one hopes they will? Honestly, I can't tell what you are implying, except "war bad".

> Are you saying no one expects the US to win a war?

I certainly don't

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

#145

Post by helij »

tencentshill wrote: post #105
SanjayMehta wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The only sources I can find for that are all Russian. Wikipedia (Which I assume you will dismiss out of hand) says it's complicated to determine at best, as they both hide information and boost propaganda. At least don't state it as fact. No one actually knows, which is why citing sources is helpful so that weight can be added.

Here's some from BBC (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cg7ed4rp7x5o and https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp9jl8vxdy9o) and one from Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-hands-ukraine-10...). No reason not to believe these numbers as neither side denied it. The reasons for such numbers mismatch are many and don't always tell the story of who's "winning".

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

#146

Post by jagged-chisel »

rbanffy wrote: post #137
lo_zamoyski wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> why did you hire these morons? The democratic process is the selection of incompetent people by unqualified people.

> by unqualified people. That's what the public education system was supposed to prevent.

Which is why They have spent decades attempting to dismantle it.

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

#147

Post by watwut »

ReptileMan wrote: post #127
watwut wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How could such a thing possibly prove that "USA is sensitive to civilian deaths"? USA is just not sensitive to that. It is sensitive to lives of own soldiers, very much.

Usually it is couple of civilians per enemy combatant. So USA kills civilians at rates many times under the norm.

Iran is the norm now? And the USA self reporting about their own civilian victims (or military victims) is somehow to be trusted?

USA is attacking desalination plants and civilian infrastructure. It was doing it in the first stage of the war and led with those attacks in the second.

USA is killing fishermen in pacific. Just to make Hegseth feel like manly man. USA is engineering human catastrophe in Cuba. And it is supporting genocide in Gaza.

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

#148

Post by tsoukase »

"Hear me, then strike" Themistocles

They are not wars in the narrow meaning. They are long term superficial conflicts, that human history has not seen before. With the modern weapons and technology a traditional war should annihilate the globe in 3 days, not still f.. around after 3 years.

The whole theatre seems to happen for three purposes: media consumption to cause widespread bother, constant increase of defense budgets and multiplication of public debts. The top leaders are not the presidents but the owners of the three pilars: finance, weapons and media, which happens to be the same group of people (guess who).

Since 1992 we are experiencing a slow war that continuous for about 8-10 years before a new one begins immediately after the previous ends. It's a perfectly executed soap opera in episodes and seasons that has managed to persuade us that it's inevitable and natural like sunlight.

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

#149

Post by sanderjd »

RenThraysk wrote: post #131
sanderjd wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are the one in this thread who comes off as gullible. You seem to have bought the post-facto and baldly pretextual narrative that the war both had the objective of delivering Iran of nuclear capability and is achieving that objective.

You want to try that again? Because that is the opposite of what I believe. Recent event was the continuing effort to prevent Iran getting nukes since 2005.

No it wasn't. That wasn't even the second pretext they tried to convince us of, it was like the third or fourth one.

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

#150

Post by strictnein »

wasfgwp wrote: post #56
rbanffy wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The stock market did great during WW2, though. Of course this time its not dominated by industrial conglomerates which can retool their factories to manufacture military equipment.

The DJIA was more or less flat during WW2. Not sure where you've read that it was "great". During the middle of the war it was down 35-40%.
Post reply on HN