5 ms·
> Part of the problem is the missions the Pentagon imagines itself in, versus the missions they wind up in. > So instead, we're going to keep using hammers to s
by golergka 8y ago
> Part of the problem is the missions the Pentagon imagines itself in, versus the missions they wind up in.
> So instead, we're going to keep using hammers to swat flies, because we might need hammers against Russia someday and we're rich anyhow.
It's the basic game theory: you have to be prepared in wars you don't want to happen, exactly because you being prepared for them prevents it.
Preventing conflict by developing ways of measuring outcome of a potential conflict without actually acting it out is a technique that's been used by animals way before humans came along.
- beat 8y agoMutual Assured Destruction has been more effective than high-tech planes at preventing wars between major powers.
- golergka 8y agoMAD prevented a full-on nuclear war. Fighter planes and other high-tech equipment have helpved preventing proxy wars in a lot of hot regions around the globe.
- beat 8y agoWe've been in proxy wars pretty much nonstop since MAD became a thing.
- golergka 8y agoThis is true, but in no way contradicts or disproves my point.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoWell, it makes it seem that "preventing" means something different to you than it does to me. Perhaps you could clarify your point a bit?
- golergka 8y agoThere are a lot more of proxy countries that don't go to active war and act out conflicts in a diplomatic manner – but you almost always don't notice these situations. Appealing to proxy wars that do happen is a survivorship bias.