Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

mwi.westpoint.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

621–630 of 701 posts

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#621

Post by ceejayoz »

tsimionescu wrote: post #573
ceejayoz wrote: post #518

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's an unavoidable physical cap here. It's fueled with methane and oxygen, and its size is known. It can't be, say, $50m/flight in fuel for the same reason a 747's flight can't be; there's not enough space for that much fuel.

Sure, but that's true of Saturn V as well, and of Falcon 9, and Soyuz and any other rocket you want. That didn't make space deployment a viable military strategy so far, and I think we should be skeptical of any such claim about Starship. Also, fuel is just part of the cost of a rocket.

> Also, fuel is just part of the cost of a rocket.

Sure. But if you blew up a 747 at the end of every trip, it'd be a small part of the total cost, not a major part.

Starship's reusability makes it very clearly not like the other examples you cite, yeah? There are lots of scenarios where the US government would pay, say, $10M to deliver a payload somewhere fast, but not $250M.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#622

Post by ericmay »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #608
ericmay wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's even simpler than that: all countries do have equal rights. The fact that russia or israel or the USA feel differently, and violate those rights, is immaterial. You forgot some countries (Venezuela, Iran, &c.) but this very fact proves my point. Those rights are just fictions which are mostly backed by American military power. > What does the United Nations say about israel's actions in Lebanon and Palestine?…

> What does that have to do with Iran? And why would the bad actions of one country excuse the bad actions of another? If israel's nuclear program isn't a "bad action", then Iran's nuclear program isn't a "bad action", either. If there is no bad action there, then there's nothing to excuse, and we're left with unjustified israeli attacks on Iran (along with Palestine and Lebanon to boot). > I’m talking about Iran’s n…

> If israel's nuclear program isn't a "bad action", then Iran's nuclear program isn't a "bad action", either. If there is no bad action there, then there's nothing to excuse, and we're left with unjustified israeli attacks on Iran (along with Palestine and Lebanon to boot).

Who said it wasn't?

We're also left with unjustified Iranian attacks (along with Hamas and Hezbollah and Houthis).

> Why are you excusing israel breaking those rules? Iran has been an NPT member for decades, israel refuses to even sign it, much less abide by the restrictions and safeguards around nuclear nonproliferation. Clearly they are the real proliferation threat here.

I didn't excuse them. I think the only country that should have nuclear weapons is America. Maybe the UK. Israel's bad actions don't excuse Iran's. If you want to argue that countries have equal rights (which just isn't reflected in reality and arguably isn't even a good thing) the construction of those rights require rules and laws and arbitration and you have to be fair and also criticize Iran for breaking those rules. Iran breaking the rules, stands opposed to your ideals about countries having equal rights. If Iran has the right to break their signature for nuclear non-proliferation, so does anyone else. Whatever the excuse or justification anyone can also do the same and it's equally valid.

You're quick to stand in defense of Iran and attack Israel. I'm saying both countries suck and both are breaking the rules.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#623

Post by user_7832 »

wahern wrote: post #575
user_7832 wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think something fundamentally new is not only the incentivisation directly affecting kills - as a top team/unit can iterate up much faster, unlike a soldier who could boast more kills, but still have the same rifle as his colleagues - but the layers and desensitisation overall. Part of this probably admittedly isn't new, and likely started with drones, where you could kill someone in Iraq sitting in DC, on the othe…

Nobody in Ukraine is separated from the carnage, least of all the soldiers. The value in the points system is in communicating target priorities down the line. It's just another technological improvement in the vein of, say, the radio. All technological improvements will seem to have the effect of dehumanizing people. But war is fundamentally dehumanizing. In fact, for most soldiers dehumanizing the enemy is a necess…

Unfortunately I'm too tired to give a more thought out reply at this time of the night, but there were a few things I wanted to add.

To clarify at the outset, I full understand your view and partly agree with it.

I just had some thoughts, and was reminded of something while reading your comment.

> All technological improvements will seem to have the effect of dehumanizing people...

> Where technology creates greater moral hazards in war is when it helps insulate the leadership and population from the consequences of war, and so lowers the sociological and political costs to violence...

These were also the results of the invention of the gatlin gun.

A gun made by the creator to save lives.

Of course, if you now can shoot 100 times as many bullets, you don't use 1/100th as many men, you just shoot 100x bullets.

Which... yeah. I wish I had a solution, but I don't. And obviously no one's going to ramp down their own death causing machines™ when the enemy has no incentive to. (Nuclear proliferation was probably only sucessful mainly because of the high level of difficulty in both the processes as well as material sourcing.)

> Debates over e-points, to me, reflect a failure to appreciate the reality...

I don't think the debate (at least not from my side) is over e points; it's more "shit, war's already terrible, and this is even more dehumanising".

> ...yet seem to assume soldiers watching a drone video feed feel no different than playing a video game...

I never implied that in the slightest. My ire is primarily directed at the people making the system, which almost certainly are folks at higher ranks - not the average soldier. I fully understand humans are human(e).

> Especially in the beginning I forced myself to watch the videos, just so I wouldn't get lost in abstraction. The human suffering is gut wrenching. You can watch men getting shredded down; soldiers embracing each other in fear and helplessness moments before they're killed or maimed.

I have also watched many of these absolutely messed up videos; but I am absolutely not convinced that the e-points system reduces this suffering in any way. Psychological distance absolutely can make it "easier" to kill, and perhaps a man with a broken down tank was already effectively a "Hors de Combat" but if you shoot him you get 12 points, and...

...I think you see what I'm saying.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#624

Post by user_7832 »

user_7832 wrote: post #623
wahern wrote: post #575

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody in Ukraine is separated from the carnage, least of all the soldiers. The value in the points system is in communicating target priorities down the line. It's just another technological improvement in the vein of, say, the radio. All technological improvements will seem to have the effect of dehumanizing people. But war is fundamentally dehumanizing. In fact, for most soldiers dehumanizing the enemy is a necess…

Unfortunately I'm too tired to give a more thought out reply at this time of the night, but there were a few things I wanted to add. To clarify at the outset, I full understand your view and partly agree with it. I just had some thoughts, and was reminded of something while reading your comment. > All technological improvements will seem to have the effect of dehumanizing people... > Where technology creates greater…

Also I just wanted to add - I'm nowhere claiming this is a cushy job for Ukrainian drone operators who won't get PTSD due to it being via a screen.

In my original comment, I had said

> this is way more similar to CoD or any other shooting game than it has ever been in human history, and by a significant amount.

I'm saying it's far closer to CoD. It's absolutely still fucked up, regardless of whether you're an operator or a family of someone on the frontline. But I'm not claiming it's identical to a game.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#625

Post by esseph »

troupo wrote: post #499
ericmay wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Credit certainly that Russian logistics failed, but was it Ukrainian logistics that beat them back or was it Ukrainian logistics and heroism alongside American and British support, intelligence, and 24/7 airlifts of critical weapons and equipment that beat them back?

> and 24/7 airlifts of critical weapons and equipment that beat them back? There were no 24/7 airlifts of criticql weapons and equipment at any point in this war. Ukraine was expected to fall quickly, and any help it needed started arriving very reluctantly, very slowly, in small batches stretched over months and years of deliveries much much later.

> Ukraine was expected to fall quickly, and any help it needed started arriving very reluctantly, very slowly, in small batches stretched over months and years of deliveries much much later.

This is bullshit from anyone in the know.

There had been multiple YEARS of Western Special Operations inside Ukraine leading up to and during the opening phases of the war. Some were pulled back to defend Kyiv / Zelensky during the original search for him in the opening days of the war. Without UK SOF and their initial deployments of anti-armor weapons, there is a good chance Russia would have gotten much further.

Ukraine has had comprehensive intelligence, logistics, etc support for a long time, but it has been a fraction of what each country could contribute.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#626

Post by lenerdenator »

QuercusMax wrote: post #560
lenerdenator wrote: post #558

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not answering the question. Are these ships being targeted sailing under the flag of a belligerent nation? Yes or no?

What about all those fishing boats the US has been blowing up?

Also wrong. So maybe both sides should stop targeting civilian ships.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#627

Post by 4gotunameagain »

andrei_says_ wrote: post #613
4gotunameagain wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

1. War is insanity already. Not sure how pointing ways someone is making war more efficient is sanewashing in this context. 2. Assuming every pow gets tortured is an extraordinary statement which as such could use some solid proof.

1. Even in the insanity of war, there are rules and ethics we collectively agree to (except Israel apparently with white phosphorus use). I find that gamifying taking human lives crosses the line.

2. Not every captured soldier of course, some don't even know where they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_of_war_in_the_Russo-...

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#628

Post by ceejayoz »

bumby wrote: post #617
ceejayoz wrote: post #606

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Economic viability is not the same goal. They're close enough, functionally.

Not in scientific edge domains. Eg: quantum computing is shown to be scientifically feasible right now, but nowhere close to having economic viability in a business sense. Same with fusion etc etc

> Not in scientific edge domains.

That's JWST-style stuff, not SpaceX at this point.

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#629

Post by caycep »

mschuster91 wrote: post #468
caycep wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they already have that, they want to make sure it stays that way alternatively, there's a Dennis Ross piece out pointing out that China's procurement patterns over the years suggests they are not seriously thinking of invading Taiwan, they just want everyone to think that way...

> they just want everyone to think that way That's the thing with religious or ideologically driven dictators. They're nutjobs, not beholden to reality in their decisionmaking but to whatever their ideology prescribes - and thus are prone to making decisions that seem to (or end up being) utterly stupid / irrational. With Yugoslavia, it was Tito's idea to force all the various countries into one common ethnicity. Wit…

Granted, there is what is China is "openly saying" in terms of official warnings and such, and what they are "openly saying" in terms of what they are actually spending money on in terms of material, equipment and capability (of which there is at least some degree of logical, non-nut job type thinking behind):

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/china/mirage-chinas-military-...

Re: The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war

#630

Post by user_7832 »

godwinson__4-8 wrote: post #586
user_7832 wrote: post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think something fundamentally new is not only the incentivisation directly affecting kills - as a top team/unit can iterate up much faster, unlike a soldier who could boast more kills, but still have the same rifle as his colleagues - but the layers and desensitisation overall. Part of this probably admittedly isn't new, and likely started with drones, where you could kill someone in Iraq sitting in DC, on the othe…

This post is so insanely out of touch with reality. What an irony. Their country is being invaded. Their families are being affected and killed. Their land is being taken. The goal is to end their country. Trying to project criticisms of the American drone program onto Ukraine in such an openly transparent and uncritical manner is the only thing sickening here. For your platitudes about humanity you clearly care so l…

> What an irony. Their country is being invaded. Their families are being affected and killed. Their land is being taken. The goal is to end their country.

And what does that have to do with anything I was talking about?

I'm talking about "Shit, it's bad to dehumanise war even more".

Are you saying "No, that's a good thing if your country is under attack"?

Because if you're actually wanting to say "It's a fucked up situation for them", then, yeah, I agree... and I've never said anything to the contrary? Are we on the same page then, or not?

> The comparison to CoD in particular is so deeply egregious.

So you're saying this war isn't the closest we've been to a gamified war perhaps ever in human history?

If you're saying "we shouldn't be crying about gamification because there are more important things as their country's at stake", well, there are more humans dying of hunger every day than in Ukraine, so therefore the EU should put all its funds supporting Ukraine into reducing global hunger? By that logic??

Please, if you're a grown adult, have the nuance and the maturity to show it. Multiple things can be issues at the same time, and calling one out doesn't make the other justified - because that's what it feels like you're accusing me of. And please feel free to correct me if I've said anything wrong (or if you disagree with any of my options.)

Post reply on HN