Live data from Hacker News

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

acoup.blog

211–220 of 339 posts

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

#211
I suspect things may be a tad simpler than discussed in this essay, even when most of it is compelling and rings true.

I want to highlight that the main difference in my opinion is, and always was, that of attacking versus defending. Attacking is more often a clusterfuck of complexity and a constant process of messing up as opposed to defending a territory. When attacking you must have that critical 3:1 or 5:1 ratio in all aspects of employing your force, and it’s expected that mistakes will be made, losses will accrue and even grander failures will abound along the way. I would claim that even the Russians eventually adapt, albeit rather slowly, and so does anyone else. It’s about morale, motivation and will, and here it is likely that defenders have an upper hand.

In short, when attacking, be ready for a hell of a suffering in almost any case, except for when you have a hundredfold superiority in all facets of warfare, or alternatively, if you have stellar intelligence capabilities and the benefit of surprise when your enemy least expects it. And I’m not even talking about maintaining order after you’ve conquered a territory…

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

#212

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.

> WWII started just before WWI. Some people call the Second World War part 2 of the first.

Ehh......

WWI is complicated, but it essentially boils down to a great power war caused by a breakdown in relations that reached the point that diplomats were unwilling or incapable of keeping the war from breaking out. The result of WWI was that all of the traditional great powers (both those who won and lost) were spent [1]. The peace treaty sought to see the victors compensated by the losers, and part of the compensation was breaking them up in the vain hope that this would make war less likely, with some parts being carved up into independent countries, and others (especially colonies) being annexed to the victors.

WWII isn't so much a single war as it is four (sets of) wars of naked territorial aggression (Germany, Italy, Soviet, and Japanese) and two civil wars (China and France) that got merged into a single conflict by the fact that everyone ended up aligning into one side or the other. These wars don't start just before WWI; in many cases, the territorial jealousies that precipitate the war can't start until after WWI (e.g., how can Russia start seeking to invade its neighboring countries when they're still part of Russia?).

In between these two conflicts is a very large series of civil wars and revolutions and failed revolutions that are largely born from the instability of the international political sphere following the exhaustion of all great powers in WWI. These (relatively) smaller conflicts provide a more or less continuous segue between WWI and WWII, to the point that it may be better to just think of the period from 1914 to 1949 as a modern Thirty Years' War that sees the world shift from a balance-of-power regime involving the major European powers to a world that involves just two superpowers and their alliances.

[1] The US was the only major country not economically devastated by the war, but despite its economic size, its unwillingness to participate in European affairs means it's not really a great power as far as people at the time were heavily concerned--it doesn't enter the stage until WWI.

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

#213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

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

Offensive alliance.

Libya. Serbia. Afghanistan - all offensive operations.

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

#214
post #17

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]

Your analysis is accurate in one sense but inaccurate in another.

Correct; Putin had an issue with NATO expansion.

But the reason this was an issue for him is completely missed (or deliberately ignored) by people like yourself.

The fact that NATO is a defensive pact IS the problem.

Because if a country joins NATO, that means Russia can’t invade it.

Putin’s wet dreams all revolve around restoring Russian glory and territory. He’s also said this publicly, too.

And that is why NATO expansion is such an issue for him. Any other narrative is absolute hogwash

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

#215

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…

The problem with such a demo is it will be conducted in a way that does minimum actual human harm, as it obviously should. As such, a raw feed of it won't really demonstrate much besides "big boom knocks things down" and at worst be celebrated in the same way people celebrate fireworks and rocket launches. Nations may attempt to "add context" through fake corpses or actors or some such to demonstrate the heat & radiation burns it does to humans, but that will be quickly called out as manipulative propaganda, as it pretty much is. Tragically the only way to demonstrate it's effect and prevent a nuclear attack from happening is have a nuclear attack happen.

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

#216

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…

That's a double edged sword, reminding some people that the weapons exist and are functional

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

#217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here he is in February 2022 again saying they won't invade: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Nbj1AR_aAcE&t=4731s At a certain point it sure looks like Russian apologism.

"That would probably involve the invasion of the eastern part of the country" - direct quote from your YouTube video.

Mearshimer's claim to fame stems from accurately predicting this invasion would happen.

He did also say that Putin wouldnt try to occupy Ukraine (presumably beyond the eastern part/crimea) but would instead aim to wreck it.

That part seems to be coming true as we speak.

The only way to "disprove" Mearshimer's prediction is mischaracterize Russia's military goals during the initial strike on Kiev (I am not certain what they were but I am 200% certain occupation wasn't one of them because the force was far too small for that task).

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

#218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mearsheimer saw it coming and got it basically right. He predicted "Putin will wreck Ukraine" and this is happening now.

That is some pretzel logic right there.

Just plain and simple facts.

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

#219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> will exceed # of destroyers that US has by 2040 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 t…

> Bear in mind that China has pretty much no oil and these 055 destroyer boats are diesel&gas turbine powered.

Well, then they are lucky that Russia, now sanctioned by the West, has no choice but to sell all their oil to China, at discount prices.

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

#220

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…

Can't you just have them take a look here and observe the impact of these things?

https://goo.gl/maps/MqkLCrLqNr4usuj29

Seems like we did enough of this already.

Post reply on HN