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

161–170 of 339 posts

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

#161

Post by [deleted] »

nerdponx wrote: post #65
JacobiX wrote: post #33

Another possibility for the period of relatively long peace is the modern equivalent of The Pax Romana. For reference Pax Romana, describes a 200-year era in the Roman Empire from 27 B.C.E. to 180 C.E. This timeframe marked a significant phase of peace and remarkable economic growth achieved through hegemony. The US has the biggest economy and the largest military spending by far.

Rome was still actively campaigning on its borders and violently suppressing revolts in the provinces during that time period. But it probably felt very peaceful from the perspective of (middle- and upper-class) Romans, especially in contrast to the constant warfare and chaos of the centuries before and after.

[deleted]

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

#162

Post by roarcher »

WeylandYutani wrote: post #113
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.

America didn't learn it forgot. Many people wrote about counter insurgency warfare in the 70s after Vietnam. Mind you much of it was political: "we're about to occupy a country where 20 million people want to kill us" would have sounded pretty awful at the State of the Union.

The military took many lessons from Vietnam that didn't work in the Middle East.

As one example, at the start of the war in Afghanistan, Marine scout snipers would operate in two-man teams. This was a Vietnam-era SOP that favored stealth over firepower--two men can't lay down much heat, but they don't need to if the enemy can't find and engage them. It's pretty easy to hide a couple guys in a jungle, so it worked well.

The problem with that doctrine in Afghanistan is that hiding even two men is difficult in arid environments. A team is far more likely to be seen regardless of its size and needs to be able to defend itself if compromised, which happens far more often in a desert. By 2010 the SOP was 8-man teams. At least one bloody incident was the cause of those numbers being bumped up.

There's a saying that rings true, "The military is always fighting the last war".

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

#163

Post by anonymouskimmer »

jdlshore wrote: post #18
georgeg23 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That theory ignores the Cold War, which hinged on M.A.D.

In what way? The fundamental argument is that war is less profitable than economic competition, which is exactly how the Cold War progressed, and why the US won . Edit: My mistake, I thought you were talking about Deveraux’s theory, but it looks like you were talking about the Economic Stability Theory OP mentioned.

> The fundamental argument is that war is less profitable than economic competition, which is exactly how the Cold War progressed, and why the US won.

So for countries that lose the economic competition, might war be a 'better' option?

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

#164

Post by anonymouskimmer »

newhaus1994 wrote: post #32
avgcorrection wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Considering that the US was half of global GDP at the end of WW2 and has long been more than happy to sanction anyone who conducts in an (unapproved) war (such as Russia right now), the modern era of "long peace" fits this theory pretty well. How often has the US been at not-war in that period?

IR theorists sometimes try to get around this by narrowing the focus to direct great-power wars, which always felt like a cop-out to me (I'm a political scientist) EDIT: although to be clear, the last time I checked, I believe the stats still back up that overall fatalities from military conflict have been at historic lows. I generally prefer what little Hegemonic Stability there may be to the multipolar shitshows of…

> I believe the stats still back up that overall fatalities from military conflict have been at historic lows.

The argument can't be about overall fatalities, but about overall conflicts (and the numbers/proportion of people involved in such). Medical and sanitation technology alone has dramatically decreased the human-life cost of war, at least in proportion to total population.

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

#165

Post by pdonis »

akkartik wrote: post #146
pdonis wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Ah, I see; you're not sure the big stick is actually as big as the article assumes. Yes, fair point.

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

#166

Post by dvt »

roarcher wrote: post #162
WeylandYutani wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

America didn't learn it forgot. Many people wrote about counter insurgency warfare in the 70s after Vietnam. Mind you much of it was political: "we're about to occupy a country where 20 million people want to kill us" would have sounded pretty awful at the State of the Union.

The military took many lessons from Vietnam that didn't work in the Middle East. As one example, at the start of the war in Afghanistan, Marine scout snipers would operate in two-man teams. This was a Vietnam-era SOP that favored stealth over firepower--two men can't lay down much heat, but they don't need to if the enemy can't find and engage them. It's pretty easy to hide a couple guys in a jungle, so it worked wel…

Super cool insight, I wonder what the turnaround or bureaucratic process is of fundamentally changing an SOP. It can't just be generals mandating these things (or is it?).

Changing organizational processes tends to be extremely hard in large orgs, and I wonder how the military deals with it.

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

#167

Post by mikewarot »

The first time I heard Eric Weinstein call for periodic above ground nuclear weapons demonstrations[1], I thought it was nuts. That's because I grew up with the threat of the H-Bomb[2] and the impending nightmares that I've had ever since (though thankfully they are infrequent these days).

Seeing how casually people dismiss the possible effects of a war involving 10,000 of these weapons has caused me to re-evaluate things.

We should have am internationally sanctioned thermonuclear weapons demo every few years, at least once per decade, but less than annually. To remind everyone what's at stake.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/G23s5TX1QRM

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon

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

#168

Post by anonymouskimmer »

BSEdlMMldESB wrote: post #45
safety1st wrote: post #6

This stuff about the world being peaceful due to the industrial revolution doesn't make a lot of sense to me. For one thing, the IR significantly predated WW1 and WW2. It didn't prevent those, so how'd it cause the "long peace" afterwards? The predominant theory about this in international relations is hegemonic stability theory - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_stability_theory - there have been several peri…

> anyone who conducts in an (unapproved) war (such as Russia right now) you're actually saying that any war is OK as long as the USA starts it. it's an expression of: "do as the USA tells you to do; do not do what the USA itself does" the 'grown up view' is that there are trade-offs. the USA is an empire... I define the essence of an empire to be: a group of people from one place telling people from another place wha…

> you're actually saying that any war is OK as long as the USA starts it.

Bush Jr. has been convicted of war crimes in at least one country because of his actions with respect to the Iraq war: https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a35397/b...

Very few countries are opposed to the US invasion of Afghanistan, as those plotting the previous attack on the US were doing so from a position of sanctuary in Afghanistan at the time.

Wars of genuine self defense are basically automatically approved by standard international law: https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtml

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

#169

Post by akiselev »

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?

The primary change to HMMWVs is the shape of the hull: they’re now designed in a V shape to deflect the force from explosives away to the sides of the vehicle.
Post reply on HN