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

201–210 of 339 posts

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

#201

Post by adzm »

alejohausner wrote: post #179
epicureanideal wrote: post #111

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,…

> Their young men are being sacrificed to an American plan to wear down the Russian army.

Their young men are being sacrificed to evict a foreign army that has invaded their soil. This has the side effect of wearing down the Russian army, so of course others are going to help who want that effect, too. But that is not why they are sacrificing their lives.

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

#202

Post by jcranmer »

dotnet00 wrote: post #156
epicureanideal wrote: post #150

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…

The historical Russian counterpart to NATO was the Warsaw Pact, which was pretty clearly solely an instrument by which the USSR exerted its will over its members --its primary intervention was to invade a country that wanted to leave.

So it's not entirely unreasonable for a Russian to look at the NATO as potentially acting like the Warsaw Pact did, although, as you note, the fact that much of NATO doesn't share the same foreign policy as the US (indeed, often criticizes the US's foreign policy aims!) should disabuse them of that notion.

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

#203

Post by quicklime »

mikewarot wrote: post #167

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…

There were tests by France and China in 1996, by India and Pakistan in 1998, and by North Korea in 2009, 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017.

We’ve never had a decade without a nuclear test since the 1940s.

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

#204

Post by jackpirate »

dotnet00 wrote: post #156
epicureanideal wrote: post #150

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…

There was rather a lot of NATO coordination in the US-led invasions of both Iraq and Afghanistan. None of the military missions in these countries were in response to the Article V mutual defense clause of the NATO treaty. It's very easy to see how these operations (and therefore the NATO alliance) would be seen as aggressive to these countries.

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

#205

Post by randomopining »

wazer5 wrote: post #93
marianatom wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

here's the thing, humanity got lucky. there was a nonzero chance that china and the dictatorships could have triumphed. if China didn't botch the chance to overtake US in 2008 with a capable dictator. if China got its hands on many advanced US military technologies. if Russia didn't botch the Ukraine invasion. if covid didn't have a vaccine, except one that China developed. I'm sure most of us are aware of the gulags…

Wow you should visit China though, it's great. I feel for those who don't get to experience the benefits of globalization.

Great in which way? I guess working for peanuts is a great step up for people who suffered through famines.

Otherwise it's the common battle between "orderliness at any cost" and freedoms. US or Europe seems to strike a better balance, for all of their shortcomings. In China its ruled by the CCP with an iron fist.

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

#206

Post by chrysler »

epicureanideal wrote: post #150
dotnet00 wrote: post #148

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…

>> That's how the alliance markets itself, but that's not how everyone in the world, especially their potential adversaries, perceives it.

Not since 1990, at least. Cold War era defensive structures were dismantled when Warsaw Pact dissolved and Russia never established any comparable defensive structures on its own borders.

In terms of military doctrine, composition and placement of armed forces, preparations of border defenses, early warning systems etc, Russia has not prepared for invasion in any way. Why, if they perceive this as a threat like you say? With virtually all of Russia's fighting force in Ukraine, the road to Russia is wide open. There isn't even a wire fence on Russian side of border with NATO countries Norway, Finland, Estonia, and Latvia! Where do you see any signs of belief in threat from NATO to Russia?

Countries that border Russia, in contrast, have made extensive preparations to fight off another Russian invasion.

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

#207

Post by rad_gruchalski »

soperj wrote: post #192
mikewarot wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

People still deny that the earth is round. Doesn't really matter about the demos going on. Question, do moon landing deniers deny everything due to space? like do they think that the current SpaceX stuff is all cgi? What about the space shuttle? Or is it literally just going to the moon that they don't believe in?

Current SpaceX hadn’t been to the Moon yet.

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

#208

Post by TeMPOraL »

soperj wrote: post #192
mikewarot wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

People still deny that the earth is round. Doesn't really matter about the demos going on. Question, do moon landing deniers deny everything due to space? like do they think that the current SpaceX stuff is all cgi? What about the space shuttle? Or is it literally just going to the moon that they don't believe in?

Well, it the hypothetical reality of the thermonuclear Olympic torch, it would be easier to secure the tickets for live viewing and witness the blast, than it would be to go high enough to see Earth in its real shape.

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

#209

Post by iskander »

> But in a world where most invasions are – or at least ought to be – self-deterring, for countries that do not have revanchist neighbors who might launch a stupid war of conquest out of pique

Seems a bit dismissive about the degree of revanchism in many former empires (or among people who imagine themselves the descendants of those empires).

Turkey, Iran, China, and Russia at the very least are all waiting for or working towards a world where territorial acquisition by conquest is the norm.

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

#210

Post by throwawayPAX »

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pax_Americana
Post reply on HN