2 ms·
>The only warfare that matters today is asymmetrical warfare against relatively low-tech guerrillas and third-tier states. No, that's not correct, and is emble
by remarkEon 9y ago
>The only warfare that matters today is asymmetrical warfare against relatively low-tech guerrillas and third-tier states.
No, that's not correct, and is emblematic of the insistence to "always train for the last war." The reality of what future war might look like is much more nuanced than "either MAD or more COIN." General Milley talked about this last summer, and I tend to agree with his assessment. Incidentally his critique is inline with the posted article about mindless obedience.
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/miserable-disobedient-victorious-gen-milleys-future-us-soldier/ http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/miserable-disobedient-vic...
- wahern 9y agoAbsolutely nobody insists on only training for the last war. The only people who use that phrase are people who are convinced, beyond all reason, that we're making that mistake; or people who use it as a strawman to criticize arguments concerning priority and budget.
- kcorbitt 9y agoI read the article, but Gen. Milley doesn't make the case for why mutually-assured destruction is no longer relevant (he doesn't mention it at all, actually). After 50 years in which it has arguably been the primary strategic factor maintaining the peace among the great powers, I'm curious about why the future would look different.
- poof131 9y agoThe problem with mutually assured destruction is the “assured” part. There is nothing assured about it. Cyber, space, and other weapons could dismantle the assurance and we could be in a totally different warfare environment. Certainly this doesn’t seem to be the case yet, but I wouldn’t make assumptions about the future.