151–160 of 339 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Peaceful just has to be a continuum in order for us to make any sense of a theory of peace. Nope. Any reasonable person will accept an argument about how things are peaceful in relative terms. Factoring in everything and not cherry-picking. Demanding perfect peace would be way too idealistic.
I think we’re saying the same thing. Are we not?
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?
In this specific case humvees were particularly ineffective against the IED-based warfare being conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. Light, fast, vehicles are not particularly resilient to explosives.
Also, while the 20” battle rifle does provide superior ballistics for the 5.56 round, it’s unwieldy and there was a fair bit of CQB during the GWOT. 14.5” carbines were a sort of middle ground that could perform in both long range and short range engagements. Night time direct action raids by special forces even opt for shorter 10.5/11.5 barrels.
I recommend Jeff Gurwitch on YouTube he goes in depth into the history and rational behind equipment evolutions during the GWOT from a first hand perspective as an ex-SF soldier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Haber-Bosch was just before WWI, not WWII
WWII started just before WWI. Some people call the Second World War part 2 of the first. At the time people were worried that the settlement with Germany was just an armistice. Those people turned out to be right. I’m not saying you’re wrong, just that we should be very very careful treating the wars like they were unrelated incidents. They absolutely were not.
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.
It's what the US has been doing since WWII.
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.
I rarely take political speech on its face value. I only watched half a minute but Putin was stating what he stated for a particular audience, to get a particular reaction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 th…
Everyone else sees very clearly that an alliance which only invokes when attacked and requires the resolution of territorial disputes prior to gaining membership is not going to just invade them first.
Half of the members were literally dependent on Russia for their energy needs, many of them thinking that the US was the warmongerer for being constantly paranoid about Russia's intentions, with defense budgets trending downwards and the former American president having openly questioned the need for NATO. There is no reasonable way to argue that they were at all going to be attacking Russia as an alliance in that state.
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]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow you should visit China though, it's great. I feel for those who don't get to experience the benefits of globalization.
lol, how presumptuous. I have visited China in 2007, before it turned authoritarian/dictatorship. I would not visit China again to support the dictatorship. I can visit any number of democratic countries like Taiwan. I feel for those who don't get that they are supporting evil. Btw, speaking of evil, China isn't giving up yet (Xi still have 10-20 years to live. free organ transplants from young Chinese, you know. hig…
Bear in mind that China has pretty much no oil and these 055 destroyer boats are diesel&gas turbine powered. And the US has been slowly winding down military presence since the Cold War ended basically[1].
And lemme tell you, if Taiwan goes hot, there wont be any USN boats spare to patrol the Middle East -> South China sea route, and nobody would be angry if any oil tankers on that route go missing.
[1]: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/graph-of-the-week-why-flee...
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?