U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand • Hacker News Board

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#51

Post by Turing_Machine » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 6:07 AM UTC

pj_mukh wrote: post #49

Turing_Machine wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region." Sure it has. Ever heard of the Ottoman Empire? Where is it now? What happened to it? What happened to Pharaonic Egypt? The Crusader States? The Achaemenid Empire? Carthage? Troy? Akkadia? Babylonia? Many others could be named; the history of the region is rife with examples of ground wars quite decisively solving problems in the region.

Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter. The wide mass spread of ideas worldwide is what makes the 'idea' more potent than anything ground troops could go door-to-door to kill. We have to face it, we cannot shoot and bomb our way out of this. The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century.

"Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter."

Okay, now you're just trying to spin. Naked force has settled more issues ("solved more problems", as you put it) than any other human activity.

"The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields."

What they had was an opponent willing to carry out a policy of utter destruction. ISIS doesn't have such an opponent. Yet.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#52

Post by hitekker » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 6:12 AM UTC

dools wrote: post #15

hitekker wrote: post #10

Side note: I wish discussion boards had a feature where you could upvote literature or some basic articles relating the to topics covered in the OP. This way people who are not familiar with the matter, or perhaps just curious about alternative interpretations could see other sources that the community deems worthy. For the article above, it would likely be an intersection of "War on ISIS", "Military Industrial Compl…

Awesome I'd never heard of 'war is a racket', thanks! In return let me reccomend "the ruses for war" by john quigley and confessions of an economic hitman (and others) by john quigley as well as "a game as old as empire" with foreward by the same.

Thank you in return: judging from google it seems like Quigley can teach the nontrivial stuff.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#53

Post by hitekker » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 6:13 AM UTC

wh-uws wrote: post #36

hitekker wrote: post #10

Side note: I wish discussion boards had a feature where you could upvote literature or some basic articles relating the to topics covered in the OP. This way people who are not familiar with the matter, or perhaps just curious about alternative interpretations could see other sources that the community deems worthy. For the article above, it would likely be an intersection of "War on ISIS", "Military Industrial Compl…

At first I said to myself "that is a startup." Then I recognized it bascially exists in the form of the sidebars on reddit's subreddits. It really helps with content quality because you can somewhat assume hopefully everyone is working from the same knowledge set to discuss a topic.

Subreddit sidebars tend to be chosen by moderators. Not saying they don't represent their communities, more that there is a limit to how much time they can invest into the task of bringing the community up to speed on this or that.

Factoring in the constraints of the sidebar makes it a somewhat less appealing option.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#54

Post by npunt » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 6:16 AM UTC

hnamazon123 wrote: post #22

npunt wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to cut off the snake at its head, cut the money supply. Its not like we live in some great era of terrorism - there's always been deranged people who wish to destroy and whom get a few followers. The difference between that phenomenon and ISIS is they've secured some land that produces oil, and have a buyer - Turkey. This suggests hard-nosed diplomacy before military intervention, especially as the result…

Islamic State needs oil money to sustain its military, not the terrorists that it sends into Europe. The most expensive cost there is airfare and weapons/munitions. Additionally, cutting off funding doesn't solve the issue of homegrown terrorism, a la Sayed Farook who is a salaried employee and set up an IED factory in his home. He probably paid for that himself.

First, I'd bet that ISIS money is spent on a lot more than military - what about providing a cushy experience for previously recruited western radicals, so that they tell others back home how great it is? Can't find the link, but varieties in accommodations for recently recruited western radicals vs others is causing some internal strife. If you came over to ISIS from some nice first world place like London, only to find yourself in a very uncomfortable, foreign desert environment eating crap food, you probably wouldn't send message back that everything's great. That costs money.

Second, you assume the cost of propaganda is 0, which it is not. ISIS has gone so far as to publish a very high production value magazine [0] and high quality recruitment videos. You can bet that there are tons of people on message boards and other corners of the net that are on ISIS payroll out there trying to radicalize as many people as possible, offering a (twisted) sense of purpose and meaning in their lives. And people collecting and disseminating content on how best to make IEDs, kill people, etc. They undoubtedly have many social media managers.

In my first comment I was going to add another point which was that if we were able to completely wipe out ISIS that will not all of a sudden stop people from being radicalized, it will only stop those being radicalized by ISIS. ISIS happens to recruit better than most (due to their money), but there will always be people, often marginalized, who will fall prey to radicalization - and some who seek it out. Sayed seems like he was that kind of guy, ISIS or no.

Everyone's all up in arms about ISIS because we're being blanketed by news about them, which is not proportional to the threat they actually pose to us. Paris was a manifestation of longstanding troubles with european countries integrating muslim immigrants which likely created necessary conditions for radicalization by [insert crazy people]; San Bernardino was very likely a manifestation of mental health issues and cultural marginalization/domestic political climate. These issues are unlikely to go away when ISIS does - the latter we have an example of from just the week prior with the Planned Parenthood shooter.

[0] http://www.clarionproject.org/news/islamic-state-isis-isil-p...

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#55

Post by Turing_Machine » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 6:17 AM UTC

pj_mukh wrote: post #49

Turing_Machine wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"A ground war has barely ever solved a problem in that region." Sure it has. Ever heard of the Ottoman Empire? Where is it now? What happened to it? What happened to Pharaonic Egypt? The Crusader States? The Achaemenid Empire? Carthage? Troy? Akkadia? Babylonia? Many others could be named; the history of the region is rife with examples of ground wars quite decisively solving problems in the region.

Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter. The wide mass spread of ideas worldwide is what makes the 'idea' more potent than anything ground troops could go door-to-door to kill. We have to face it, we cannot shoot and bomb our way out of this. The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century.

P.S. With respect to "battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century"

Umm...Stalingrad? 1943?

Dude, I really think you need to read some more history, and I'm not saying that to be condescending. Your grasp of historic events seems to be a little hazy.

Also, for some reason both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. thought the Fulda Gap was quite important, right up to the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#56

Post by hitekker » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 6:20 AM UTC

npunt wrote: post #50

uptownfunk wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps unrelated, but are there any groups (deliberately non-specific) working to address this?

Very good question, I don't know! I'm unfamiliar with the structures of working groups but I imagine it'd have to be pretty heavily social sciences weighted (ethnography, sociology/psychology, media studies, education, etc). Personally, I'd like to see a mix of rapid prototyping, science fiction (engaging in hypotheticals on systems and cultural impact), and solid research. Evaluation is going to be challenging due t…

A lot of good points you brought up!

At least on the business side: right now the only noteworthy product that seems to be innovating in the general discussion space is http://try.discourse.org/. I'm not following this field closely, so I'm probably missing out on at least 10 interesting possibilities.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#57

Post by Senji » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 6:23 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #23

hnamazon123 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've already gotten the better of us because they're within our borders. Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). They've…

> Now the choice is between doing nothing, thereby accepting the risk of us or our loved ones getting blown up or shot going while we go about our daily routine (see: Israel during the second intifada) or trade liberties for security (see: Brussels and France today) until we come up with a more sustainable solution (see: Israel today). That risk will always be there no matter what we do. > They've already gotten the…

Would it really be so bad to give a death cult what it wants for itself? Oblivion? With our technology we could disrupt their lines of communication and means to recruit among the civilians. But you'll have to actively target them. As people. And you'll have to actively target their message. Their keywords, you could even target them by keywords.

This would however dragnet target the entire religion.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#58

Post by propogandist » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 6:35 AM UTC

oconnore wrote: post #6

vippy wrote: post #2

Because there's no other way around this but to be political, can't we sort out our crumbling infrastructure, education, and healthcare systems before worrying about blowing up a middle-age, middle eastern cult? Can we not let them get the better of us? Or have we entirely sold out to the arms industry?

They've already launched direct attacks on our allies, and more recently inspired attacks on US soil. They are holding territory, are self funded (generously), and are recruiting around the globe. Arguably they are more dangerous than Al-Qaeda ever was. Doesn't this merit a military response? If not, what on earth would?

When US Forces decided to engage an ISIS convoy transporting Illegal oil - they first droppped leaflets warning ISIS of the incoming attack.

US forced then used weapons (mostly machine guns) to destroy Just 116 out of 300 trucks. But then US FORCES RAN OUT OF AMMO WHEN DESTROYING ISIS' ILLEGAL OIL TANKER CONVY and US military did Not bother to send drones or additional Air Support to destory the oil tankers which is the BIGGEST SOURCE OF REVENUE for ISIS.

--

> "So these trucks were -- they were just sitting there, not moving. So, you know, we dropped the leaflets. We did a low pass. We chased any of the -- you know, the truck drivers away, and we destroyed them. So, they weren't moving. They were all, as you saw on the video, they were all stationary. Nothing was driving anywhere. So it was a pretty straightforward, you know, attack." ...

"Just three quick clarifications on the trucks again. If -- sorry if I missed it, but why didn't you guys go back on the other trucks? There were 300, I think, to begin with, and then you hit 116. Why didn't you go back?" [0]

"So, on the other trucks, so -- frankly, the -- the -- the aircraft expended 24 500-pound bombs, and -- and all of their ammunition. So they -- they shot everything they had and then they had to go home." [0]

Why would US military do this? Well this week, we got this news about the Oil tankers [1]

Keep in mind all "ISIS propoganda" and news comes Exclusively out of a single group - SITE Intelligence group. It's worthwhile to look into the background of the founder & CEO of this group.

[0] http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View...

[1] www.reuters.com/article/2015/12/02/us-mideast-crisis-russia-turkey-idUSKBN0TL19S20151202

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#59

Post by npunt » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 6:39 AM UTC

Turing_Machine wrote: post #55

pj_mukh wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? None of them had the power of videos online and twitter. The wide mass spread of ideas worldwide is what makes the 'idea' more potent than anything ground troops could go door-to-door to kill. We have to face it, we cannot shoot and bomb our way out of this. The wars you mention had battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century.

P.S. With respect to "battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century" Umm...Stalingrad? 1943? Dude, I really think you need to read some more history, and I'm not saying that to be condescending. Your grasp of historic events seems to be a little hazy. Also, for some reason both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. thought the Fulda Gap was quite important, right up to the fall of the Soviet Union in…

I believe pj_mukh was referring to asymmetrical warfare in the style of Stalingrad being what is more common nowadays rather than before.

Regardless, we got a clear picture of the cost and lack of result of such a strategy from the last 15 years, so the idea that this time will be different has a very high burden of proof.

Re: U.S. Can't Make Weapons Fast Enough to Meet Demand

#60

Post by Turing_Machine » Sat, Dec 05, 2015, 6:54 AM UTC

npunt wrote: post #59

Turing_Machine wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

P.S. With respect to "battles drawn out on big fields. That hasn't been relevant in a century" Umm...Stalingrad? 1943? Dude, I really think you need to read some more history, and I'm not saying that to be condescending. Your grasp of historic events seems to be a little hazy. Also, for some reason both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. thought the Fulda Gap was quite important, right up to the fall of the Soviet Union in…

I believe pj_mukh was referring to asymmetrical warfare in the style of Stalingrad being what is more common nowadays rather than before. Regardless, we got a clear picture of the cost and lack of result of such a strategy from the last 15 years, so the idea that this time will be different has a very high burden of proof.

Ummm... no. The last 15 years have been anything but a full-scale war-to-the-knife strategy, ala WWII.

While the United States may not be willing to do that sort of thing, others may (cough...Putin, aka the honey badger of heads of state).

Also, such policies have a way of changing if the perceived threat level becomes high enough, as the former inhabitants of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Dresden could attest.

I am not arguing (or interested in an argument about) whether those things were justified or not. I am merely pointing out that those things can and do happen.

Generalizing from Afghanistan is also not justifiable. Many have tried (and failed) to conquer and hold Afghanistan (in no small degree because there's not really anything there worth owning). Syria, by contrast, has been successfully conquered, and held, many times.