4 ms·

First, thank you for your service. 03-07 were quite some rough years. > realistically we're more likely to be fighting a handful of goat herders in Afghanistan

First, thank you for your service. 03-07 were quite some rough years. > realistically we're more likely to be fighting a handful of goat herders in Afghanistan with an AK and a bag full of rice before we're taking on an armored division. Absolutely true. And to keep this statement true in the future as well, it will make sense to heed FDR’s advice to speak softly and cary a big stick. We need advanced weapons not in order to use them, but in order not to use them.

TheAdamAndChe 6y ago
"Big sticks" don't help against irrational actors. Mutually Assured Destruction assures that there will be no direct conflict between superpowers, but if individuals become radicalized, they become willing to act irrationally(from a game theory definition of "rational"). This is the real reason we started a war against terror. Terrorism and asymmetric warfare are about the only external thing capable of actually bringing our country down.
- credit_guy 6y ago
  > Mutually Assured Destruction assures that there will be no direct conflict between superpowers If a conflict stays below a certain threshold, it doesn't go nuclear. Russia is always prodding to see how far they can go. Ability to answer in kind is something you need, and autonomous tanks seem to fit the bill quite well.
Snitch-Thursday 6y ago
Pedantry ahead: Big Stick diplomacy was Teddy, not Franklin, Roosevelt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Stick_ideology