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

251–260 of 339 posts

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

#251

Post by pas »

pfdietz wrote: post #198
jcranmer wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Youtube channel Drachinifel covers those war games, and the lessons the US learned (and didn't learn) from them in pretty extensive detail here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMK9a-vDE5zEmzgruoWAy...

That's a different set of games. The Fleet Problems were LARPing with ships. This could be invaluable for understanding (some) tactical issues but could not apply to understanding prolonged campaigns (that would be too costly). For that, the Naval War College did tabletop/paper games, lasting up to months, that covered multiple engagements. Fascinating free book that motivated these comments: https://www.history.navy…

please do go into details!

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

#252

Post by kneebonian »

cyberax wrote: post #237
marianatom wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can erase them that's not how economics works. if that's the case, you would not see the Chinese governments (federal and local) doing desperate things to collect more revenues like: - China considers measures to encourage re-employment of retirees https://hrmasia.com/china-considers-measures-to-encourage-re... - issuing massive traffic/parking tickets a year after, to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars,…

> that's not how economics works. It is. You can erase all debts by hyperinflation, for example. China for sure has problems, but it's not the "crashing down tomorrow" kind of problems. They still have a robust growth, now that COVID restrictions are over.

China had a demographic collapse problem that can't be remedied and can't be squared with their doctrine of racial superiority.

China is on its way out.

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

#253

Post by didericis »

tomatotomato37 wrote: post #215
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…

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 & radia…

I think the casual dismissal of nuclear war has more to do with the artificial nature of most people's realities than a lack of a direct demonstration of the destruction of nuclear war specifically. People think it can't happen because the majority of people's lives in the developed world are heavily distorted fake marketed/filtered/scripted stuff optimized to do what they want. People love spectacle, they're used to being insulated from the effects, and they think past concerns are like boring stuff from an old season of a TV show.

I think wilderness camping is the best counter to that kind of thing. Sounds unrelated, but it's one of the most visceral, instinctual ways to get people to remember the reality of physical consequences. Those consequences exist no matter how frustrating or stressful they may be to deal with. If you leave food out, it spoils/you have no food. If you can't find water, you have no water. If you don't sterilize the water/check the source, you get sick. There's no grocery store, no cops, no social media to get support from, no emergency deliveries, no doctor, no credit to extend... nothing but nature and what you carry on your back. If you screw up, you're screwed.

I only did a couple trips like that, but when I got back to highways, cars, skyscrapers, restaurants, etc, I appreciated how amazing it all is, and how it's basically all just a very, very big, complicated campsite that's been built up over a long time. Nothing manmade is a given, and the only thing keeping it together is us. Nature is way bigger than you, and there are no guardrails. If someone launches a nuke, it's not a strategy game or a movie. That's a cliff you don't want to walk anywhere near.

A one or two week backpacking trip in the middle of nowhere should be a graduation requirement, imo. Would have lots of benefits beyond just added perspective about the reality of physical consequences.

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

#254

Post by ajross »

barbariangrunge wrote: post #130
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…

The peace is due to nuclear weapons and the threat of global extinction. When that isn’t a factor, we still see lots of wars. Period. Because the next major war between nuclear equipped powers might be the worlds last

> The peace is due to nuclear weapons and the threat of global extinction. When that isn’t a factor, we still see lots of wars. Period.

We don't, though. The article treats with this. In fact per capita deaths to state violence are down remarkably over the last century, all over the world. The perception, due to the reach of modern media, is that war is everywhere. But the truth on the ground is very different.

Two hundred years ago, almost everyone knew someone who died in a war, or saw a war come through their home. Now? It's a notable rarity.

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

#255

Post by dralley »

pydry wrote: post #250
dralley wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The fact that he sent a force 1/10th the size required for military occupation does tend to suggest that he had a different military goal in mind when he sent the force. Lol. No. Explain the military purpose of sending riot police and parade uniforms? Explain the military purpose of getting 10,000 of his most capable special forces troops slaughtered in 3 days? Explain the 30 mile convoy? The simplest explanation is…

>Lol. No. Explain the military purpose of sending riot police OMON are not just riot police and are routinely sent on Russian military expeditions (e.g. there are some in Syria). Theres some evidence that a few hundred of the invading force of 15,000 (cite: Wikipedia) were OMON. The question you apparently haven't asked yourself is "if their goal was occupation, why did they send a few hundred OMON troops rather than…

They didn't send a few hundred. They sent 60 thousand.

Putin has been very consistent about his views of Ukraine. It makes perfect sense that he got it completely wrong.

As I said, read the reports, you may find it interesting.

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

#256

Post by _kbh_ »

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,…

> 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.

I keep forgetting in Russias absolute drug hazed existence a country looking to defend itself is justification for invasion.

But we know all the NATO stuff is false as Russia was given assurances by NATO members that Ukraine would be vetoed.

That didn’t do anything to stop Russias brutal war.

> But somehow bringing NATO to Russia's doorstep should not be seen as provocation?

So when’s the invasion of Finland happening? If keeping NATO from Russias door step was the goal of this war if failed already.

> It's very tempting to paint your military enemies as cartoon villains. In fact, painting Putin as a cleptocratic thug is easy. It gets you reelected at home. But openly humiliating him is bad foreign policy.

I’m not sure what you’re saying, are you saying that Putins army is so pathetic that he needs other countries to handicap the country defending itself so he can look good?.

> RFK Jr's message is that Ukraine did not benefit from this war. Their young men are being sacrificed to an American plan to wear down the Russian army.

RJK Jrs message is pure Russian propaganda.

But even if this was a devious American plan to wear down the Russian army. The russians could easily avoid this by just leaving.

The Ukrainians are defending themselves from a brutal invasion if they stop fighting there is no more Ukraine who knows how many more war crimes the Russians will commit.

If the Russians stop fighting there is no more war.

> Why provoke the war when realpolitik says it's better to compromise?

The world has tried compromising with Russia time and time again and it just leads to more invasions and more war crimes by them.

The Russians don’t understand compromise only strength, the only way to get Russia to stop is by displaying strength not compromise.

> Cui bono? Who benefits from this conflict? American military contractors, and American exporters of natural gas.

The Russians benefit greatly from this conflict if they win, that is why a lot of the world is trying to help stop the brutal imperialistic invasion.

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

#257

Post by gonzo41 »

13of40 wrote: post #89
michaelt wrote: post #64

> 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…

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.

They picked up the M4s in Iraq. Those full length M16a2s go HAM for the engagement distances in Afghanistan. And don't worry, the army is already circling back towards light skinned vehicles.

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

#258

Post by pas »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #163
jdlshore wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

if they can decisively finish it fast and keep the spoils. post-WW2 this was only true for the superpowers. and only some of the times. (eg. see the failures in Afghanistan, see how it's impossible to finish a war quickly if there are sufficiently powerful allies of the target willing to sponsor the insurgency/proxy war, etc.)

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

#259

Post by telotortium »

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.

Not so different from the US, really. I'm sure Middle Easterners speak of the "Pax" Americana in sarcastic tones.

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

#260

Post by telotortium »

A book-length critique of the idea that the "long peace" means that the world in general has gotten more peaceful: Only the Dead: The Persistence of War in the Modern Age by Bear F. Braumoeller[0].

I came across the book recently, and it argues that we won't be able to statistically tell if the world is in fact getting more peaceful for about a century. The incidence of war as well as the number of dead doesn't seem to have appreciably decreased on average for the past two centuries, on a worldwide scale. It's true that there hasn't been a war as destructive as World War I and II since then (although the Iran-Iraq war rivals those in terms of number of deaths divided by the population of the combatant nations), but there's no particular reason to conclude that wars that kill so many people won't happen again.

It was quite convincing and sobering to me.

[0]: https://www.amazon.com/Only-Dead-Persistence-War-Modern/dp/0...

Post reply on HN