Live data from Hacker News

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

acoup.blog

181–190 of 339 posts

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

#181
Nassim Taleb's critique of the "long peace":

"We investigate the theses of “long peace” and drop in violence and find that these are statistically invalid and resulting from flawed and naive methodologies, ..."

https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pinker.pdf

Our technology is smarter than our politics. We will be lucky if we don't blow up everything.

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

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You posted a lecture in which Mearsheimer says Russia will never try to conquer Ukraine, because "Putin is much too smart for that" -- and ask us to accept him as an expert?

Not that I agree with the content of the lecture, but you have to read between the lines for that. "Putin is much too smart for that" is a stand in for "it would be very stupid for Putin to do this please don't" that looks like a compliment at surface level.

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

#183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The only ones pretending that it isn't a defensive alliance are the ones who have some territorial claim they're hoping to take military action against. For whom it is very inconvenient that there's this group of countries who would very much rather they didn't. Everyone else sees very clearly that an alliance which only invokes when attacked and requires the resolution of territorial disputes prior to gaining member…

This is a Good Post, and honestly your last point includes one of the things that I (as an American, and generally critical of our own foreign adventurism) am most astonished by. We have culturally never expected much of NATO to stand up to Russia; the saber-rattling felt like it was frequently working against Europe. That Russia could push too far and stiffen European resolve so sharply seemed off the table.

The cynic in me sometimes thinks that part of it, and the American response as well, is perhaps as much that it's a European country being bullied and not somewhere far away (read: brown), but that it's happening at all is any port in the storm.

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

#184
post #173

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 t…

Why not just play videos of previous demos as if it's news.

Because, just like the moon landings, people will deny they exist at some point.

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

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is the point that Robert Kennedy Jr has been making, very eloquently. Regardless of how heinous Putin may be, how nasty the Russian invasion has been, it was not unprovoked. The USA put missiles in Turkey in 1961, and the Soviets responded by puting missiles in Cuba. The Soviets felt threatened by missiles that could hit Moscow in 30 minutes, and they responded in kind. What did the USA do? They blockaded Cuba,…

If Russia had been consistent in their reasons for expansion this would be believable. But they've said too many things to believe that they are primarily motivated by NATO expansion on its lonesome.

> Who benefits from this conflict?

Minority populations in a variety of countries (Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus) who nostalgically yearn for Russian confederation again.

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

#186
I see no mention of the UN in these discussions. The post-wwii international order has been maintained in large part thanks to the global agreement to recognize the UN as the venue to arbitrer large disputes. But there's a dangerous growing movement to denigrate the UN for various ideological reasons.

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

#187
Pinker's "long peace" theory with respect to global conflict is likely bad statistics - 20th-21st century under US military hegemony had a comparable if not higher number of conflicts, see Max Roser’s work documenting global conflicts over the past 600 years. What has changed is that war now is generally shorter and less deadly especially towards combatants, but that's more reflective of the pace of modern war enabled by modern weapons. High intensity wars don't last for 20+ years anymore because you can pretty much destroy nations in 1-5, and belligerents are quicker to exhaust and forced to settle. In aggregate war fatalities is down, but not # of conflicts. US hegemony didn't stop USSR and RU from warring in their periphery, nor PRC border skirmishes pre 90s when US had vast more naval power asymmetry. When countries want to fight for their interests, especially regional, they still do.

Ultimately, US military dominance is good for US+LIO interests / serenity, but hard to extrapolate anything more. IMO multipolarity will increase the chance of "smaller" conflicts as poles assert their own interests for sure, but it's going to be around the baseline of conflicts that's consistently been simmering throughout history. The fear is increasing large-scale conflict between poles/blocks - ending the cyclic gap between major wars among major powers - but that's what happens when declining hegemon pushes their interests to the exclusion of others too intensely for too long.

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

#188

> What is – quietly, because they haven’t tried to launch a major invasion recently – most militaries are probably similarly incapable of the basic tasks of industrial warfare? I once read an article that argued in the absence of war, it's impossible to tell if a doctrine or commander is good or not . Maybe you've got five officers up for promotion. One officer wants to give soldiers high-tech equipment, a heads-up d…

You can wargame and simulate. It's not perfect, but it can give very useful pointers, especially at the strategic level.

The US Navy did extensive wargaming at the Naval War College in the inter-war years, from after WW1 to about 1933. The results were extraordinarily valuable in the Pacific when WW2 came about. The strategic issues the Japanese had can be seen as the consequence of not gaming full campaigns (as opposed to putative "decisive battles").

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

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

This is the point that Robert Kennedy Jr has been making, very eloquently. Regardless of how heinous Putin may be, how nasty the Russian invasion has been, it was not unprovoked. The USA put missiles in Turkey in 1961, and the Soviets responded by puting missiles in Cuba. The Soviets felt threatened by missiles that could hit Moscow in 30 minutes, and they responded in kind. What did the USA do? They blockaded Cuba,…

Comparisons with Cuba ignore the fact that the balance of military power in Europe is heavily in Russia's favor. For example, Russia hosts nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad enclave, in the middle of Europe. Map: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2016/1...

And now it's placing further nuclear missiles in Belarus.

And yet, when countries directly threatened by these weapons seek mutual defense pacts and cooperation with other countries in Europe and North America, you call this a provocation. Russia can place nukes in Europe and that's fine, but Poland can't even hold joint military exercises with France. Can you tell me why?

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

#190

This blog post has some curious blind spots that, if taken into account, negate most of its primary thesis about 'the long peace'. The focus of the post is two-fold: the recent outbreak of war in eastern Ukraine, in truncated form (the war has been going on at a low level since 2014, with militia forces supplied by Russia and Ukraine fighting one another in eastern Ukraine throughout that period), and a recommendatio…

> The focus of the post is two-fold: the recent outbreak of war in eastern Ukraine, in truncated form (the war has been going on at a low level since 2014, with militia forces supplied by Russia and Ukraine fighting one another in eastern Ukraine throughout that period), and a recommendation for a book about a naval battle in World War II. Hmm... what about Vietnam and Iraq?

That is not the focus of the post. It's a "Fireside Friday;" an abbreviated [1] discussion of some topic, combined with a generally unrelated list of recommendations. You're misreading a lot into the author to assume that there's some hidden agenda to avoid talking about America's modern wars. There's no discussion of the US here because the entire theory is essentially a pondering (not structured enough to be a full thesis) of "does long peace make countries into paper tigers?" where the US not having been at peace means it fails the precondition.

And as other commenters have noted, the author does have include criticism of America's foreign policy misadventures in this blog post, not to mention that there's been more forceful denunciations in other blog posts.

[1] Abbreviated here is relative; the author's in-depth discussions will be multiple blog posts on a single topic.

Post reply on HN