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

"No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

construction-physics.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 249 posts

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#181

Post by l33t7332273 »

dmurray wrote: post #100
nostrademons wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all depends on victory conditions. The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. But WW2 was fought as the U.S. was an ascendant (but not dominant) power among a number of peer rivals, and the U.S. was not the aggressor. It felt like a victory, because we emerged as the dominant p…

> The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. This might be taught in US schools, but outside the US we have a rather different take on how the Vietnam war ended - the US-backed government fell and the North Vietnamese government took over the rest of the country. And we learned that…

It is not taught in US schools that the IS won Vietnam in the sense that the government we backed won. Why do you think it is?

Also, the Korean war was clearly a victory for the US; we intended to defend SK and prevent the spread of Communism, and that’s what happened.

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#182

Post by l33t7332273 »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #115
dmurray wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. This might be taught in US schools, but outside the US we have a rather different take on how the Vietnam war ended - the US-backed government fell and the North Vietnamese government took over the rest of the country. And we learned that…

You're missing the forest for the trees. Reality is the US won it's war against communism by the early 1970's. There wasn't much reason to continue the war in Vietnam after that. Not the least because the communists in Vietnam had no intention of being a Russian or Chinese vassal state. Suited the US just fine.

The reason to commit so ferociously to Vietnam was to show our other strategic partners and allies how far USA was willing to go for seemingly small things; if we’ll dump endless troves of blood and treasure for a small country in Asia, what will we do if tanks push into Berlin?

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#183

Post by l33t7332273 »

michaelt wrote: post #143
nostrademons wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all depends on victory conditions. The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. But WW2 was fought as the U.S. was an ascendant (but not dominant) power among a number of peer rivals, and the U.S. was not the aggressor. It felt like a victory, because we emerged as the dominant p…

> The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. I feel you're overlooking the critical fact that after the allies won WW2, Nazis didn't control Germany. Whereas the Taliban remains in control of Afghanistan. To describe that as a US win doesn't really seem accurate. The US did print a…

The mission accomplished banner was for Iraq, not Afghanistan. USA explicitly achieved its war aims in Iraq 2(and Iraq 1 for that matter).

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#184

Post by l33t7332273 »

scotty79 wrote: post #91
nostrademons wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This all depends on victory conditions. The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. But WW2 was fought as the U.S. was an ascendant (but not dominant) power among a number of peer rivals, and the U.S. was not the aggressor. It felt like a victory, because we emerged as the dominant p…

I don't think any other country considers any of those cases to be wins ... Perhaps maybe wars in Iraq or Jugoslavia. I think eventual loss in Ukraine will be last nail in the coffin of US military reputation.

It would be particularly strange for US’s military reputation to be damaged by a war it hasn’t lost a man in.

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#186

Post by AlbertCory »

nostrademons wrote: post #83
sjfjsjdjwvwvc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which war did the US win post WW2? Afaict they all ended in stalemates and eventual retreat (Korea,Iraq,Vietnam,Afghanistan,..)

This all depends on victory conditions. The U.S. "won" Korea, Iraq, Vietnam, and Afghanistan in the same sense that they "won" WW2 - those countries were bombed back into the stone age and the existing governments fell. But WW2 was fought as the U.S. was an ascendant (but not dominant) power among a number of peer rivals, and the U.S. was not the aggressor. It felt like a victory, because we emerged as the dominant p…

This is ignorant of Clausewitz's definitions, which no one has managed to supplant. It has nothing to do with emerging as the dominant power or getting average citizens any benefits.

"winning" the war means accomplishing your political objectives. Those objectives may change as the war goes on, and in the case of Korea, the objective became "keep South Korea free from North Korean domination." That was achieved.

It was unclear to MacArthur and he assumed it was "destroy North Korea, whatever it takes." That became NOT the US objective, when it became clear that China stood in the way of it.

In Vietnam the objectives were never clearly laid out, but "keep South Vietnam free from North Vietnam domination" was pretty clearly it. Thus, we lost.

Your other points are wrong: the first Iraq war's objective was to eject Iraq from Kuwait. Perhaps that goal was insufficient, but that was the goal the military undertook, and achieved.

https://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Critical-Analysis-Vietnam-Wa...

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#187

Post by shagmin »

herval wrote: post #150
hef19898 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the wars mentioned have ckear, internationally acknowledged winners and loosers as well as treaties. Vietnam ended in US defeat, and French defeat before that. Afghanistan ended with US / NATO defeat and the Taliban taking over the country. The Korean War isn't over yet technically, all we have there is a cease fire. Stalemate, nobody surrendered. The US won the second Gulf War, Panama and some smaller stuff I am…

Would you mind providing some “clear and internationally acknowledged” sources for the Korean War that stated it’s still ongoing or that Afghanistan was an undisputed loss?

As for the Korean war, it's kind of a fuzzy topic. There was no formal peace deal, just an armistice that became the status quo. And there are still occasional clashes. These probably aren't the kind of sources you're looking for but it's a weird topic. To me it's more obvious that we lost Vietnam than Afghanistan yet I've heard so many arguments the US did win Vietnam (usually where "winning" means something different to different people). Either way Afghanistan was at least an embarrassment.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_conflict

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/12/30/asia...

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#188

Post by tcbawo »

sbierwagen wrote: post #122
ren_engineer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not sure if America actually cares about those types of war and military considerations any longer. Have you looked at ship construction times lately? it's kind of funny because the US won WWII by the ability to churn out huge volumes of decent quality goods but now our military seems to be adopting the German idea that small numbers of expensive wunderwaffen will turn the tide

Well, what will a future war look like? We're never going to fight WW2 again, because all the great powers have nuclear weapons now. The US army will never take the field in a straight up slugfest against Russia or China. So that leaves non-nuclear regional powers. But you simply don't need a whole-of-society mobilization to fight Iran. The phase of active combat against Iran will not take years-- it won't take month…

My guess is that the future of war looks like Ukraine, where small, cheap automated drones will overwhelm expensive, low volume hardware, munitions, and defensive positions.

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#189

Post by legitster »

SoftTalker wrote: post #42
legitster wrote: post #9

My grandfather worked in a metal shop for 30 years after he served in Korea. I remember him telling me they switched to Chinese made steel in the 70s because of the quality problems they were having with American made steel. Being out West, they were somewhat more free from the political/social/union pressure to use American commodities.

Probably meant Japanese, I don't think China had much of a steel industry in the 1970s and given the politics of the time I don't think it would have been imported in the USA even if available.

He specifically said Chinese. But given the era it might have well been conflated.

Re: "No inventions; no innovations" A History of US Steel

#190

Post by Supermancho »

l33t7332273 wrote: post #182
Gibbon1 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Reality is the US won it's war against communism by the early 1970's. There wasn't much reason to continue the war in Vietnam after that. Not the least because the communists in Vietnam had no intention of being a Russian or Chinese vassal state. Suited the US just fine.

The reason to commit so ferociously to Vietnam was to show our other strategic partners and allies how far USA was willing to go for seemingly small things; if we’ll dump endless troves of blood and treasure for a small country in Asia, what will we do if tanks push into Berlin?

Thats a benefit to the military response, but I dont believe the massive waste of political capital, manpower, and supplies looked impressive to other countries. Especially after the abrupt exit. The use of cruise missiles has been far more imoressive.
Post reply on HN