4 ms·

In every major historical engagement the US has fought it went in woefully under-equipped, under-manned, and out-gunned. It prevailed because it can tool up qui

In every major historical engagement the US has fought it went in woefully under-equipped, under-manned, and out-gunned. It prevailed because it can tool up quickly and out-produce. You can't tell me that if the entire US fleet was sunk, every tank blown up, that the US couldn't rebuild in a year or two if the public was all-in on support. Instead the US has this enormous force that, by virtue of merely existing, it feels compelled to use now and then.

octopoc 8y ago
> In every major historical engagement the US has fought it went in woefully under-equipped, under-manned, and out-gunned. It prevailed because it can tool up quickly and out-produce. It doesn't seem wise to rely on that always being true. The U.S. has not been involved in wars for very long (considering the history of war) and war has changed so much recently that assuming things won't change in the future seems like a bad plan.
- mdpopescu 8y ago
  Er what? The US has been at war for 222 years -- https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/50473 https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/50473
  - digi_owl 8y ago
    Since WW2, the "wars" have been mismatched to the extreme (never mind that in both world wars USA came in late, and never had its industrial capacity threatened). The closest to a symmetrical war was in Korea, after China sent troops. And that war has never really been resolved.
digi_owl 8y ago
Also went in late in both wold wars, when the other side was basically exhausted. Never mind never having had to operate the industry under 24/7 bombardment.
- astrodust 8y ago
  The US is just too fucking big to be subject to 24/7 bombardment. The US military, which is ridiculous, couldn't even keep a lid on Iraq and it's not even as big as Texas. There's no adversary that could possibly mount a bombing campaign that big, not even the US itself.

octopoc 8y ago

> In every major historical engagement the US has fought it went in woefully under-equipped, under-manned, and out-gunned. It prevailed because it can tool up quickly and out-produce. It doesn't seem wise to rely on that always being true. The U.S. has not been involved in wars for very long (considering the history of war) and war has changed so much recently that assuming things won't change in the future seems like a bad plan.

mdpopescu 8y ago
Er what? The US has been at war for 222 years -- https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/50473 https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/50473
- digi_owl 8y ago
  Since WW2, the "wars" have been mismatched to the extreme (never mind that in both world wars USA came in late, and never had its industrial capacity threatened). The closest to a symmetrical war was in Korea, after China sent troops. And that war has never really been resolved.

digi_owl 8y ago

Also went in late in both wold wars, when the other side was basically exhausted. Never mind never having had to operate the industry under 24/7 bombardment.

astrodust 8y ago
The US is just too fucking big to be subject to 24/7 bombardment. The US military, which is ridiculous, couldn't even keep a lid on Iraq and it's not even as big as Texas. There's no adversary that could possibly mount a bombing campaign that big, not even the US itself.