4 ms·

I agree with you re: keeping them alive, but the US is very much perpetually at war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_lengths_of_United_States_partici

by lbotos 7y ago

I agree with you re: keeping them alive, but the US is very much perpetually at war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_lengths_of_United_States_participation_in_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_lengths_of_United_... Almost so much so, that it seems like a reason to keep them alive.

rhino369 7y ago
Those low-grade conflicts aren't what much of the US military is designed for--a large conflict with another capable military force like China, Russia, etc. They are occupations and anti-surgency operations. A major conflict would require a lot of new manufacturing.
- nostrademons 7y ago
  It's interesting to see the U.S. military retooling for these low-level occupation and anti-insurgency operations. Systems like the Zumwalt destroyers, littoral combat ships, America-class amphibious assault ships, Predator/Reaper/Avenger drones, and laser weapon systems are all adapted to low-intensity, close-to-shore work. I also wonder whether the assumption that the next big war will a great-power conflict with China, Russia, etc. will actually hold. Our template for what war looks like is WW2, because that's the last time in living memory that the whole world erupted in high intensity warfare. So we've naturally built a military machine to fight the last war, but with bigger and more high-tech weaponry. But historically, Peter Thiel's observation that "each moment in history happens only once" may be closer to the truth. The era of nation-states duking it out with industrialized armored weaponry started with the Russo-Japanese war in 1905 and ended with WW2 in 1945; it had never happened before, and it never happened afterwards. The previous template for wars before then were the "wars of nationalism" (U.S. civil war, unification of Germany, unification of Italy) in the 1860s-1870s - these had some use of industrialization, but still featured things like cavalry charges and generals personally leading troops into battle. Before then was Napoleon's conquest in 1812, and before that were the American and French revolutions, both of which were very different types of war with entirely different political groups on each side. For all we know, the next major war might look like Syria but on a global scale, with numerous non-national actors all fighting over territory, resources, and mindshare.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > Our template for what war looks like is WW2, because that's the last time in living memory that the whole world erupted in high intensity warfare. So we've naturally built a military machine to fight the last war, but with bigger and more high-tech weaponry. This criticism might loosely have been true in the 1980s to 1990s, but doesn't seem particularly relevant now. > But historically, Peter Thiel's observation that "each moment in history happens only once" may be closer to the truth. It's obviously literally true, and it's been recognized as true more broadly in military matters since before Thiel was born. What is always in dispute until the next war starts is which lessons learned from the last one are critically in error now, not whether that will be the case somewhere.
  - Despegar 7y ago
    US defense priorities have firmly shifted towards fighting potentially Russia and China (maybe even at the same time).
  - iguy 7y ago
    Have you read Philip Bobbitt? esp. "The Shield of Achilles" His theme is something like this, but stressing the coupling between technology (what weapons, and economies, are possible) and law (what states, and what goals, are thought legitimate) and wars. The 20th-C meat-grinder armies were unique, in that they were both possible to sustain, and useful. And in turn the countries which survived were ones that could support them (i.e. not the Ottomans, the Austrians, etc) for which he reserves the term nation-state -- they had, and needed, a much higher degree of cohesion than had been common before. He lays out a number of distinct eras before this, with their own notions of what states were, and should do, and could do, and how this all interacted. Highly recommended if you can stomach 1000-page tomes & skip a lot. I wish there was a great more-popular presentation but I don't know of one.
    - nostrademons 7y ago
      It sounds really interesting - looking at the Wikipedia summary, it also mentions a potential downfall of the nation-state in favor of the market-state, which is a trend I see happening around me. I'll have to read it when I get a chance.
- joyjoyjoy 7y ago
  "Those low-grade conflicts aren't what much of the US military is designed for--a large conflict with another capable military force like China, Russia, etc." Doubt it. The US has basically close to zero experience in such a conflict. Even the 2nd WW was mainly a Russian-German war in Europe. 9 out of 10 German soldiers fell on the Eastern front and the US had already a much larger population and industry then Germany. In Addition, the Navy would be not very useful to engage an able opponent: http://www.johntreed.net/sittingducks.html http://www.johntreed.net/sittingducks.html
Relys 7y ago
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
- jefurii 7y ago
  Thought it was Oceania...
  - devonkim 7y ago
    I thought it was supposed to be Eurasia?
    - smolder 7y ago
      No, we live in Eurasia, remember?
thinkpad20 7y ago
Conflicts which the military industrial complex has no interest in us ever getting out of, as recent events in Yemen demonstrate. Not to mention what's looming on the horizon in Venezuela or Iran. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=2018&ind=D https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=20...
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >Not to mention what's looming on the horizon in Venezuela or Iran. Lol. Regarding Venzuela, there is still exactly zero appetite among the general public for another nation building boondoggle. So what if they have oil. We have plenty of oil too. The idea of "building" a friendly nation that's dependent on us to sell us oil has little upside these days. Regarding Iran, the defense industry is drooling over the idea that the next president may thaw relations and they'll be able to sell to both sides of the Iran/Israel standoff.
6nf 7y ago
The US is perpetually at ‘war’ on purpose. It helps to justify the military spending which in turn boosts the economy.

by lbotos 7y ago

rhino369 7y ago

Those low-grade conflicts aren't what much of the US military is designed for--a large conflict with another capable military force like China, Russia, etc. They are occupations and anti-surgency operations. A major conflict would require a lot of new manufacturing.

nostrademons 7y ago
It's interesting to see the U.S. military retooling for these low-level occupation and anti-insurgency operations. Systems like the Zumwalt destroyers, littoral combat ships, America-class amphibious assault ships, Predator/Reaper/Avenger drones, and laser weapon systems are all adapted to low-intensity, close-to-shore work. I also wonder whether the assumption that the next big war will a great-power conflict with China, Russia, etc. will actually hold. Our template for what war looks like is WW2, because that's the last time in living memory that the whole world erupted in high intensity warfare. So we've naturally built a military machine to fight the last war, but with bigger and more high-tech weaponry. But historically, Peter Thiel's observation that "each moment in history happens only once" may be closer to the truth. The era of nation-states duking it out with industrialized armored weaponry started with the Russo-Japanese war in 1905 and ended with WW2 in 1945; it had never happened before, and it never happened afterwards. The previous template for wars before then were the "wars of nationalism" (U.S. civil war, unification of Germany, unification of Italy) in the 1860s-1870s - these had some use of industrialization, but still featured things like cavalry charges and generals personally leading troops into battle. Before then was Napoleon's conquest in 1812, and before that were the American and French revolutions, both of which were very different types of war with entirely different political groups on each side. For all we know, the next major war might look like Syria but on a global scale, with numerous non-national actors all fighting over territory, resources, and mindshare.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Our template for what war looks like is WW2, because that's the last time in living memory that the whole world erupted in high intensity warfare. So we've naturally built a military machine to fight the last war, but with bigger and more high-tech weaponry. This criticism might loosely have been true in the 1980s to 1990s, but doesn't seem particularly relevant now. > But historically, Peter Thiel's observation that "each moment in history happens only once" may be closer to the truth. It's obviously literally true, and it's been recognized as true more broadly in military matters since before Thiel was born. What is always in dispute until the next war starts is which lessons learned from the last one are critically in error now, not whether that will be the case somewhere.
- Despegar 7y ago
  US defense priorities have firmly shifted towards fighting potentially Russia and China (maybe even at the same time).
- iguy 7y ago
  Have you read Philip Bobbitt? esp. "The Shield of Achilles" His theme is something like this, but stressing the coupling between technology (what weapons, and economies, are possible) and law (what states, and what goals, are thought legitimate) and wars. The 20th-C meat-grinder armies were unique, in that they were both possible to sustain, and useful. And in turn the countries which survived were ones that could support them (i.e. not the Ottomans, the Austrians, etc) for which he reserves the term nation-state -- they had, and needed, a much higher degree of cohesion than had been common before. He lays out a number of distinct eras before this, with their own notions of what states were, and should do, and could do, and how this all interacted. Highly recommended if you can stomach 1000-page tomes & skip a lot. I wish there was a great more-popular presentation but I don't know of one.
  - nostrademons 7y ago
    It sounds really interesting - looking at the Wikipedia summary, it also mentions a potential downfall of the nation-state in favor of the market-state, which is a trend I see happening around me. I'll have to read it when I get a chance.
joyjoyjoy 7y ago
"Those low-grade conflicts aren't what much of the US military is designed for--a large conflict with another capable military force like China, Russia, etc." Doubt it. The US has basically close to zero experience in such a conflict. Even the 2nd WW was mainly a Russian-German war in Europe. 9 out of 10 German soldiers fell on the Eastern front and the US had already a much larger population and industry then Germany. In Addition, the Navy would be not very useful to engage an able opponent: http://www.johntreed.net/sittingducks.html http://www.johntreed.net/sittingducks.html

Relys 7y ago

We've always been at war with Eastasia.

jefurii 7y ago
Thought it was Oceania...
- devonkim 7y ago
  I thought it was supposed to be Eurasia?
  - smolder 7y ago
    No, we live in Eurasia, remember?

thinkpad20 7y ago

Conflicts which the military industrial complex has no interest in us ever getting out of, as recent events in Yemen demonstrate. Not to mention what's looming on the horizon in Venezuela or Iran. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=2018&ind=D https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=20...

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Not to mention what's looming on the horizon in Venezuela or Iran. Lol. Regarding Venzuela, there is still exactly zero appetite among the general public for another nation building boondoggle. So what if they have oil. We have plenty of oil too. The idea of "building" a friendly nation that's dependent on us to sell us oil has little upside these days. Regarding Iran, the defense industry is drooling over the idea that the next president may thaw relations and they'll be able to sell to both sides of the Iran/Israel standoff.

6nf 7y ago

The US is perpetually at ‘war’ on purpose. It helps to justify the military spending which in turn boosts the economy.