5 ms·

I thought the US participates in multiple wars right now. I'm not from the US but it is often aaid on HN.

quickthrowman 6y ago
I think they are defining ‘real war’ as ‘total war’. None of the wars the US has been involved in since WWII have required the near-total economic output of our nation to participate in.
- newacct583 6y ago
  By that standard "total war" doesn't exist any more, the only exceptions I can think of being civil wars in developing nations with negligible GDP.
  - quickthrowman 6y ago
    Total war still exists as a concept and is not out of the question in the future. Another world war is still possible, we’re still human beings, after all. Personally, I think there hasn’t been another worldwide conflict because of nuclear weapons. I pray we never see another world war, because those will be used. Let’s hope the MacArthurs and Lemays of the 50s and 60s are all gone..
    - throwanem 6y ago
      I added a clarifying edit to my toplevel comment; briefly, the axis of my distinction is that of symmetricality. I expect the next major geopolitical era, following the post-Cold War interregnum which we seem now to be exiting, will be characterized by one of two paradigms: either oligolateral hegemony of the sort in which the US and the Soviet Union competed after WWII, but with different players, or whatever follows a violation of what has since August 1945 been the de facto single rule governing nuclear warfare - that is, thou shalt not. I don't have a good idea of what comes after such a fundamental shift, and I think neither does anyone else.
      - quickthrowman 6y ago
        I saw your clarification and agree that symmetricality is a better distinction. I agree with your analysis of the future geopolitical situation, China is making moves into Africa via sovereign debt and infrastructure, the US and EU will probably move to contain this at some point. And that’s one of many places this game is happening. I’ll gladly take another prolonged Cold War type situation over bombs.
        throwanem 6y ago
        As will I, but I don't know that I expect the US to be a major player in the likely upcoming round of dueling hegemonies. I think it depends a lot on what happens here over the next couple of decades, and very little of what has happened here over the last couple of decades encourages me to optimism on that score. Maybe I'll feel better when the current gerontocracy starts dying off at last. They can't possibly hold on that much longer. Or so at least I'd like to hope...but there, too, so much depends on exactly who ascends to replace them, and that's contingent on too many things for me to feel confident about any prediction I might make.
jrs235 6y ago
I think the OP is referring to "real" wars as wars officially declared by Congress.
Jtsummers 6y ago
The present wars are very lopsided from a military strength perspective. They aren’t fighting wars with comparable armies and navies but, primarily, against much smaller forces with much lower levels of technology (or less powerful technology). But they still value high cost, near worthless for the current wars, aircraft and ships over working towards a set of tools and capabilities appropriate to the present, multiple, wars they’re involved in.
- devonkim 6y ago
  Yeah, the DoD is designed and structured historically against super power-ish nation states, not insurgent, highly distributed, and non-state actors and modern threats. This is part of why the whole “war on terror” initiative was another forever war effort from the start. Similar to re-orgs of companies as they grow starting to mirror their customers, DoD’s structure (albeit with privatization masking its massive manpower now) in the back office grows to meet perceived threats only from a militaristic view because that’s its entire purpose. As for the warships and physical warfare, they’re essentially a combination of a federal jobs guarantee and supply chain independence exercise we’ve long lost. In the event of a total war, I don’t think we’ll be able to get a lot of equipment we need made anymore. The situation is true for most of the other superpowers except arguably China
jessaustin 6y ago
One might object to the specific idiom "real war", but GP is right to differentiate between security situations that scare Congress enough to actually pass a declaration of war (which last happened during WWII) and more excuses to funnel more money to armaments manufacturers (everything since WWII, and quite a bit before). Just because we're murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people, don't assume USA is actually under any sort of threat.

I think they are defining ‘real war’ as ‘total war’. None of the wars the US has been involved in since WWII have required the near-total economic output of our nation to participate in.

newacct583 6y ago
By that standard "total war" doesn't exist any more, the only exceptions I can think of being civil wars in developing nations with negligible GDP.
- quickthrowman 6y ago
  Total war still exists as a concept and is not out of the question in the future. Another world war is still possible, we’re still human beings, after all. Personally, I think there hasn’t been another worldwide conflict because of nuclear weapons. I pray we never see another world war, because those will be used. Let’s hope the MacArthurs and Lemays of the 50s and 60s are all gone..
  - throwanem 6y ago
    I added a clarifying edit to my toplevel comment; briefly, the axis of my distinction is that of symmetricality. I expect the next major geopolitical era, following the post-Cold War interregnum which we seem now to be exiting, will be characterized by one of two paradigms: either oligolateral hegemony of the sort in which the US and the Soviet Union competed after WWII, but with different players, or whatever follows a violation of what has since August 1945 been the de facto single rule governing nuclear warfare - that is, thou shalt not. I don't have a good idea of what comes after such a fundamental shift, and I think neither does anyone else.
    - quickthrowman 6y ago
      I saw your clarification and agree that symmetricality is a better distinction. I agree with your analysis of the future geopolitical situation, China is making moves into Africa via sovereign debt and infrastructure, the US and EU will probably move to contain this at some point. And that’s one of many places this game is happening. I’ll gladly take another prolonged Cold War type situation over bombs.
      - throwanem 6y ago
        As will I, but I don't know that I expect the US to be a major player in the likely upcoming round of dueling hegemonies. I think it depends a lot on what happens here over the next couple of decades, and very little of what has happened here over the last couple of decades encourages me to optimism on that score. Maybe I'll feel better when the current gerontocracy starts dying off at last. They can't possibly hold on that much longer. Or so at least I'd like to hope...but there, too, so much depends on exactly who ascends to replace them, and that's contingent on too many things for me to feel confident about any prediction I might make.

jrs235 6y ago

I think the OP is referring to "real" wars as wars officially declared by Congress.

Jtsummers 6y ago

The present wars are very lopsided from a military strength perspective. They aren’t fighting wars with comparable armies and navies but, primarily, against much smaller forces with much lower levels of technology (or less powerful technology). But they still value high cost, near worthless for the current wars, aircraft and ships over working towards a set of tools and capabilities appropriate to the present, multiple, wars they’re involved in.

devonkim 6y ago
Yeah, the DoD is designed and structured historically against super power-ish nation states, not insurgent, highly distributed, and non-state actors and modern threats. This is part of why the whole “war on terror” initiative was another forever war effort from the start. Similar to re-orgs of companies as they grow starting to mirror their customers, DoD’s structure (albeit with privatization masking its massive manpower now) in the back office grows to meet perceived threats only from a militaristic view because that’s its entire purpose. As for the warships and physical warfare, they’re essentially a combination of a federal jobs guarantee and supply chain independence exercise we’ve long lost. In the event of a total war, I don’t think we’ll be able to get a lot of equipment we need made anymore. The situation is true for most of the other superpowers except arguably China

jessaustin 6y ago

One might object to the specific idiom "real war", but GP is right to differentiate between security situations that scare Congress enough to actually pass a declaration of war (which last happened during WWII) and more excuses to funnel more money to armaments manufacturers (everything since WWII, and quite a bit before). Just because we're murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent people, don't assume USA is actually under any sort of threat.