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

321–330 of 339 posts

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

#321

Post by mlry »

ikekkdcjkfke wrote: post #314
gsatic wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter in the military. People aren't machines. And when you throw them into high stress, chaotic, unpredictable environments, the expections of performance arent like what you see in the movies.

If everyone had a helper in ear with birdseye view from drone or sattelite that would clear up lots of unneccesary fog of war. I've seen footage where the squad leader has an audio feed with a drone operator fro ukraine

It might. But it adds yet another channel with a shitload of information from just outside your immediate surroundings that you have to filter, process and put into relation to your situation. You need to find or create a space and time where you focus on that input while you and your team are under threat. And if you are unlucky and blessed with the right kind of leadership some staff officer in some remote hq will start to micromanagement you.

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

#322

Post by pasabagi »

ajuc wrote: post #19
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…

Just before WW2 the Haber Bosch process for fixing atmospheric nitrogen into fertilizers/explosives (same thing basically) was invented. Shortly after the war it was widespread, and since then there was no starvation in any developed or even semi-developed country. Hitler started WW2 to annex Ukraine because of its fertile soil. Basically he wanted colonies without the inconvenience of dealing with the sea. Like sovi…

All the statements in your comment, except one, are straightforwardly false. You should probably fact-check things you think.

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

#323

Post by torstenvl »

jonstewart wrote: post #276
hunter-gatherer wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The US and the HMMWV did great at the combat part of Iraq and Afghanistan. The real switch was from conventional military operations to the long peace The combat part was ok I guess, but what OP is pointing out was what we went to conflict with. Lots of money was spent upgrading Humvees with armor and turret mounts that didn't exist. The equipment fielded by US troops actually looked very different from a compariso…

I think the hypothetical you posit is wrong, as US doctrine places primacy on air power. In Iraq, I & II, air strikes at the outset destroyed much of the Iraqi armor and spurred a lot of desertion. I’m not a military and/or Iraq war expert so I don’t want to argue definitively, but I don’t think you can say US losses would have been significantly higher had the Iraqi army had heavier weapons and fighting skills — the…

Excals are not very high precision in my experience, and definitely not "one shot one kill." I don't remember exact data and I'm sure it would be classified even if I did, but... suffice it to say that laser guidance for final targeting is not good for dusty environments. (Ditto for GBU-12s, which were worthless.)

Afghanistan may have been a different story.

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

#324

Post by CRConrad »

mlry wrote: post #321
ikekkdcjkfke wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone had a helper in ear with birdseye view from drone or sattelite that would clear up lots of unneccesary fog of war. I've seen footage where the squad leader has an audio feed with a drone operator fro ukraine

It might. But it adds yet another channel with a shitload of information from just outside your immediate surroundings that you have to filter, process and put into relation to your situation. You need to find or create a space and time where you focus on that input while you and your team are under threat. And if you are unlucky and blessed with the right kind of leadership some staff officer in some remote hq will…

> But it adds yet another channel with a shitload of information from just outside your immediate surroundings that you have to filter, process and put into relation to your situation.

As I understand it (or surmise), the trick is that the drone operator sees your squad and its surroundings. So he can give you a shout, “Yo! People in the bushes forward to your left, eighty metres!”. You as the squad commander aren't doing the filtering on that channel, it's self-prioritizing.

> And if you are unlucky and blessed with the right kind of leadership some staff officer in some remote hq will start to micromanagement you.

Hmmyeah, sounds familiar... Aliens, with the Lt. back in the ship[1] directing his Space Marines and Ripley, right?

___

[1]: Or was he in the ground vehicle, that long low truck(ish) thingy with the ridiculously non-existent ground clearance? Been too long and I'm too old, can't remember.

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

#325

Post by CRConrad »

llamaLord wrote: post #224
epicureanideal wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

For context for anyone reading this, Mearsheimer is one of the most hardcore anti-nato theorist's in the International Relationship world. He IS credible, don't get me wrong. But he does also represent the extreme end of the "Realist" school of thought so definitely isn't what you'd call "balanced". Just make sure you balance his theories out with some other options, don't take him as gospel.

He's so much of a “realist” that his talks all sound pretty much exactly like Putler’s speech-writer wrote them.

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

#326

Post by CRConrad »

pydry wrote: post #217
ProjectArcturis wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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" Mear…

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

In the east, not around Kyiv. Less than a month before it happened – i.e. long after everyone else had predicted it would. And after, as shown above, he himself had spent his career claiming it wouldn't. Weak sauce, utterly weak.

Mearshimer's claim to any current fame stems almost entirely from spouting the same tired old anti-USA and anti-NATO propaganda we've heard from Russia since the Soviet era.

> 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).

Oh holy shit, I never thought this infamous Twitter Copium would show up on HN too. How naïve of me.

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

#327

Post by CRConrad »

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…

The Cope is strong in this one.

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

#328

Post by CRConrad »

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?

It varies. Those who claim Sun and Moon are tiny bodies spinning in flat circles only a few thousand miles above a flat Earth, possibly under a Firmament (basically, Sky Dome) have to deny most of astronomy and cosmology.

Funny thing is, I don't know if there are any Flat Earthers who refuse to use GPS positioning.

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

#329

Post by CRConrad »

soperj wrote: post #238
rad_gruchalski wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current SpaceX hadn’t been to the Moon yet.

I was asking if they believe what SpaceX is doing with rockets is cgi. If they believe the space station is cgi, or the space shuttle, if they just made up the casualties in the Challenger and Columbia explosions? Do they believe in Project Gemini? Any of the Apollo launches? Is it just the landing on the moon piece?

The space station is usually a combination of CGI, underwater floating, and wires.

Tip: Look for a channel called SciManDan on YT. He has regular debunkings on Flat Earth Fridays, and IIRC many of his Tinfoil Tuesdays are also, if not directly Flerf, at least Flerf-adjacent.

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

#330

Post by CRConrad »

jldugger wrote: post #246
Detrytus wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

By way of one tiny pipeline that has to travel across an entire continent the long way, or via boat through the suez canal?

> or via boat through the suez canal?

Nah. Ship.

Post reply on HN