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

51–60 of 339 posts

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

#51

Post by Metacelsus »

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…

Haber-Bosch was just before WWI, not WWII

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

#52

Post by safety1st »

georgeg23 wrote: post #9
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…

That theory ignores the Cold War, which hinged on M.A.D.

I mean the operative word in "Cold War" is Cold. There was a lot of arms buildup and posturing, and some proxy wars in smaller or less developed countries, but no wars waged directly between the great powers. The Cold War was part of the long peace that HST predicted. I think you could argue that America's supremacy was never seriously contested by the USSR - sure the USSR had nukes, but the US had plenty of those as well, it had the better economy, overwhelmingly better navy etc. There were more chips on the strategic board than MAD and most of them belonged to the US.

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

#53

Post by noduerme »

avgcorrection wrote: post #30

> I’ve discussed this before a few times, but I think Azar Gat is probably right to suggest that the long peace is itself a consequence of the changing incentives created by the industrial revolution and to an even greater extent, by nuclear weapons. Prior to the industrial revolution, war was the best way to get rich (if you won) because land and conquered subjects were so much more valuable than any kind of capital…

If the think tanks ran everything there would be no war at all, just a race for extracting minerals, creating products people didn't need and finding markets for them, and like, skinning otters and bludgeoning defenseless animals. How bad is that really compared to all-out nuclear war?

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

#54

Post by steve76 »

ihm wrote: post #10

A lot of cogent analysis here, but I’m surprised the author doesn’t seem to know about the economic and political forms of warfare which the US has been pursuing as a cheaper alternative to conventional war. To use Venezuela as an example, the author says no one has tried to invade it (which is actually not even true, see below) but also the US has been imposing crippling sanctions for over 15 years in an attempt to…

[dead]

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

#56

Post by colonCapitalDee »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #4

"We have all noticed that the Russian military appears far less capable than we thought it was; frankly it seems incapable of even some of the very basic tasks of modern industrial armies engaged in conventional military operations." I wondered about that. For the record, I have zero evidence of this as reliable records are hard to find in that arena. Chechnya was Russia's bigger conflict and now, unlike Syria and fe…

The full quote is "they have real security threats from revanchist powers (Israel, Taiwan, Poland, Finland, Ukraine, etc.)". The listed countries aren't revanchist powers, they're under threat from revanchist powers.

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

#57

Post by avgcorrection »

noduerme wrote: post #53
avgcorrection wrote: post #30

> I’ve discussed this before a few times, but I think Azar Gat is probably right to suggest that the long peace is itself a consequence of the changing incentives created by the industrial revolution and to an even greater extent, by nuclear weapons. Prior to the industrial revolution, war was the best way to get rich (if you won) because land and conquered subjects were so much more valuable than any kind of capital…

If the think tanks ran everything there would be no war at all, just a race for extracting minerals, creating products people didn't need and finding markets for them, and like, skinning otters and bludgeoning defenseless animals. How bad is that really compared to all-out nuclear war?

Why? Because they just want to maximize profits which is inherently peaceful because ? I don’t know what assumptions you’re using.

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

#58

Post by pphysch »

This article is based on the flawed premise that the Russia-Ukraine war was overwhelmingly one-sided in Russia's favor, eliding the fact that Ukraine had, over nearly a decade, amassed the next largest land army in Europe, trained by NATO, armed by NATO, guided by NATO intelligence, and side-by-side with Western PMCs.

In many aspects, they were peer competitors on the battlefield. The "paper tiger" argument would have made more sense had Russia unsuccessfully invaded Kiev in 2014. But a lot can change in 8 years.

Yes, Russia has had the advantage in long-range strike capability, but they chose not to strike command centers early in the war (contrast with the surprise airstrike on Saddam Hussein's palace 20 years ago, which kicked off Washington's unprovoked invasion).

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

#59

Post by FpUser »

devnullbrain wrote: post #39
KineticLensman wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hitler started WW2 to annex Ukraine because of its fertile soil Ukraine wasn't a distinct state then. There were many many factors involved [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II

>Ukraine wasn't a distinct state then. That has no relevance.

Well it does. USSR was much bigger than standalone Ukraine, hence different consequences.

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

#60

Post by safety1st »

BSEdlMMldESB wrote: post #45
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…

> anyone who conducts in an (unapproved) war (such as Russia right now) you're actually saying that any war is OK as long as the USA starts it. it's an expression of: "do as the USA tells you to do; do not do what the USA itself does" the 'grown up view' is that there are trade-offs. the USA is an empire... I define the essence of an empire to be: a group of people from one place telling people from another place wha…

I'm not saying any war is OK, regardless of who starts it. I would prefer there be no wars, if such a thing were feasible. I'm just saying that if you start a war the US doesn't like they have the ability to fuck you up with sanctions, and they use this ability pretty liberally to enforce a US-led peace.

And no one else really has this ability, take the Iraq War which was exceptionally vile - did the US get sanctioned for it? Nope, because sanctioning the US is basically shooting yourself in the foot. Even today it's still about a quarter of global GDP and a huge buyer of everyone else's stuff.

Post reply on HN