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

61–70 of 339 posts

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

#61

Post by noduerme »

avgcorrection wrote: post #57
noduerme wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not inherently peaceful, but it's cautious.

Invading Iraq or trying to create democracy in Libya or getting Finland to join NATO is, basically, some attempt to create stability at a distance - as misguided and chaotic as the results may be. Engaging in actual, direct war the way Putin has would be unthinkable; it would be like taking your pants off at a dinner party.

[edit] I should clarify that the invading Iraq part of the above statement was meant as a bit of jest; obviously that was precisely what Putin has done.

[edit #2] the article's flaw isn't that it (rightly) locates the source of both peace and war in the profit-making capacities of companies and governments; the flaw is in its fanciful belief (and the subject of the piece) that this has somehow led to a neutered military situation of which the present Russian losses are proof. They are no proof, and the situation is more dangerous and ambiguous than ever, partially as a result of the ongoing neutering of one of the three important millitaries in the world at the hands of the most powerful alliance. Wish that it were not so, but this destabilizes what had up until now been a grouping that was mostly driven by profit.

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

#62

Post by [deleted] »

photochemsyn wrote: post #24

This blog post has some curious blind spots that, if taken into account, negate most of its primary thesis about 'the long peace'. The focus of the post is two-fold: the recent outbreak of war in eastern Ukraine, in truncated form (the war has been going on at a low level since 2014, with militia forces supplied by Russia and Ukraine fighting one another in eastern Ukraine throughout that period), and a recommendatio…

[deleted]

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

#63

Post by nerdponx »

I'm surprised to hear the author state that war is more destructive than in the past. Is that actually true? Certainly we are more capable of destruction than in the past, but modern millitaries have put a lot of effort into being less broadly destructive, unless they specifically intend to broadly destroy things. Photos of bombed-out cities in Syria are jarring, but even the worst devastation there doesn't look as bad as what we saw in WWII, WWI, or even the American Civil War. When is the last time a city was "sacked" or a countryside "pillaged"? When is the last time an entire city population was executed? If anything, it seems like war is much less destructive than it used to be, because weaponry and tactics are much more precise than they used to be.

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

#64

Post by michaelt »

> 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 display in every helmet and a grenade-dropping drone in every backpack.

One officer wants to train loads of soldiers as linguists, so they can win hearts and minds in any country they might occupy.

One officer wants to focus on PR at home, as maintaining a steady supply of cash and adventurous young men is key to winning any conflict.

One officer wants to cut bureaucracy and red tape, as every individual in a support function is someone not in a front-line function, and it's front line fighters that win battles.

One officer thinks the important thing is physical conditioning and classic soldiering - Marching, marksmanship, long hikes carrying heavy backpacks.

How do you decide who to promote, if it's 30 years since you were last at war and none of them has ever won a real battle?

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

#65

Post by nerdponx »

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.

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

#66

Post by FpUser »

noduerme wrote: post #42

>> " What is [sic] – 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?" This premise is delusional. The Russian military may have degraded, but the war in Ukraine shows clearly that the only aspect of warfare that has significantly changed since WWII is the vastly increased efficiency in targeting weapon…

>"The long peace has been sustained only by mutually assured destruction"

I tend to agree. Well, relative piece, as smaller wars are still constant feature.

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

#67

Post by marianatom »

newuser94303 wrote: post #41

I think that Globalization has increased the costs of war. You don't want to attack your suppliers. I also think that China is probably a paper tiger on offense but they are trying not to look like an easy target on defense. Most of their recent battles have been fist fights in the Himalayas. Deglobalization is an attempt to make war feasible because some strong countries feel like they are losing economic war and wa…

here's the thing, humanity got lucky. there was a nonzero chance that china and the dictatorships could have triumphed. if China didn't botch the chance to overtake US in 2008 with a capable dictator. if China got its hands on many advanced US military technologies. if Russia didn't botch the Ukraine invasion. if covid didn't have a vaccine, except one that China developed.

I'm sure most of us are aware of the gulags that China ran in 2022, in the most prosperous city like Shanghai, with welded doors, lack of food, arbitrary killing of pets, moving their own citizens against their wills to camps or cells with no running water and unsanitary conditions. with cries in tall buildings from families in the middle of night for food. If. you haven't seen these things, go watch it online. Imagine if somehow China succeeded, and that's most of humanity's fate.

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

#68

Post by sdenton4 »

safety1st wrote: post #52
georgeg23 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So Vietnam just doesn't count? It wasn't a small way by any metric that matters - it just happened to not be on the home soil of the us or ussr.

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

#69

Post by bell-cot »

photochemsyn wrote: post #24

This blog post has some curious blind spots that, if taken into account, negate most of its primary thesis about 'the long peace'. The focus of the post is two-fold: the recent outbreak of war in eastern Ukraine, in truncated form (the war has been going on at a low level since 2014, with militia forces supplied by Russia and Ukraine fighting one another in eastern Ukraine throughout that period), and a recommendatio…

He puts quotes around 'long peace', and links to his definition - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Peace. Notice all the disclaimers there - "absence of major wars between the great powers of the period" ... "period of 'relative peace' has been compared to the relatively-long" ... "wars have declined since the 1950s" "Periods of regional and relative peace" etc. etc.

Also, the record of America's post-WWII wars actually supports his thesis. Except when brighter U.S. Presidents had a "rush in, accomplish very limited objectives, rush out" game plan - those minor wars have ~all proven too expensive to continue. ~Nothing actually gets conquered, and on a military-prowess-per-dollar basis, the American armed forces come out looking pretty underwhelming.

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

#70

Post by selimthegrim »

FpUser wrote: post #59
devnullbrain wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

After WWII Ukraine and Belarus were given separate UN seats from USSR. So in 1991 they just kept those seats.
Post reply on HN