5 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 q
by 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 agoEr what? The US has been at war for 222 years -- https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/50473 https://freakonometrics.hypotheses.org/50473
- digi_owl 8y agoSince 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.