5 ms·

You cant seriously have a modern military without this so better to just get it done with rather than China (really any country) only have the tech.

XorNot 6y ago
Well also if the US ends up in a scuffle with a super power, air superiority will more or less decide which conventional force achieves its objectives.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- macintux 6y ago
  There's a joke dating from the Cold War. Two Russian generals sipping coffee in Paris. One asks the other, "So who won the air war?"
  - protomyth 6y ago
    It's an old joke. Some generals from Iraq may want to talk about how many tanks were left after the air war was lost.
    - ISL 6y ago
      One cannot easily discuss tanks in Iraq without mentioning the Battle of 73 Easting at least in passing. Superior armament, training, and tactics make a huge difference. https://www.historynet.com/learned-battle-73-easting.htm https://www.historynet.com/learned-battle-73-easting.htm TL;DR: As part of that engagement, a troop of 9 US tanks and 12 APCs encountered one of Iraq's finest tank brigades. They destroyed ~50 Iraqi tanks, 25 APCs, 40 trucks and more in 23 minutes without taking any casualties.
      - Maursault 6y ago
        > Superior armament, training, and tactics make a huge difference. The Republican Guard was absurdly outmatched. Re: training... arguably, the encounter occurred in the way it did due to (then) Captain McMaster's aggressive advancement leading to the necessity of ignoring regimental orders not to become decisively engaged. What made the decisive difference was technology, specifically, infrared sighting and laser range-finders available to and used only by one side.
  - blt 6y ago
    Can you explain this joke?
    - rch 6y ago
      I believe the implication is that wars are won by taking and holding ground.
    - azernik 6y ago
      They're "sipping coffee in Paris" as in they've beaten NATO and occupied Continental Europe. They're asking "who won the air war?", with the implication that they don't really care because they won the part that mattered.
      - blt 6y ago
        Thanks!
- liquidify 6y ago
  I think that is pretty narrow sighted. A new major world war could be won with viruses, bacteria, drones, small robots, hacking financial systems, space lazers, genetically enhancing your population for financial domination, etc.. Air superiority is possibly a factor in some possible versions of war, but the reality is that it mostly gives us an advantage that allows us to press our will upon lesser militaries. That doesn't mean it couldn't be the dominant factor, but I imagine a major war between any super powers would be so costly to human life (since we are so good at killing now), that alternatives to traditional means of takeover would probably be preferred.
  - kamaal 6y ago
    Or may be the next world war will be won by a country that doesn't fight it. China is building international super highways for trade, continent wide trade belts and inter-continent markets. I don't think the US is lucky enough to get a war now. Countries will just maintain some minimum deterrence in the form of missile forces. So that they don't get out right invaded or sanctioned. Beyond that it will just be trade war and which country has citizens lined up to work 20 hour shifts. What makes all this so easily possible is we are not making new leap frog success in science(physics) anymore. Eventually engineering everywhere will catch up with science. In short every one can and will have weapons to deter invasions and sanctions. The problem for west is not that a war will happen, but that it won't. Every once in a while the world arrives at a paradigm change where everything changes. And no matter how good you are at the old game, it doesn't matter because the game has changed. We are likely at that place now.
  - XorNot 6y ago
    You're failing to define what the objectives are. Wars have objectives, that's why people fight them. The US and China have no ability to occupy each other's lands, nor interest in doing so. Neither do they benefit from out right destruction of infrastructure because that escalates to a nuclear conflict which wins no one anything. The most plausible engagement is US intervention in the strait of Taiwan to thwart a Chinese invasion and occupation. And that war is essentially conventional: it results from US fleets being out of position and internal politics making it look like a good opportunity.
- azernik 6y ago
  That depends on whether the air-defense laser research everyone's hyped up about produces something useful in the next few decades.
Lammy 6y ago
Sounds like our respective leaders are pitting us all against each other to farm us for the technology that enables our oppression.
- david-cako 6y ago
  sounds like the fundamental dilemma in existence, that an individual is a free agent in a prescriptive system. can businesses be free agents? certainly someone is excited about laser missile defense, and certainly the economy of ideas is in play.
ed25519FUUU 6y ago
While we’re at it we need to remove the stigma of working on this type of software. China and Russia are plowing full speed into this technology with their best engineers. We must encourage our bright engineers to work on this tech. What will Russia and China donor they come out ahead with AI weapons? Whatever they want.

XorNot 6y ago

Well also if the US ends up in a scuffle with a super power, air superiority will more or less decide which conventional force achieves its objectives.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
macintux 6y ago
There's a joke dating from the Cold War. Two Russian generals sipping coffee in Paris. One asks the other, "So who won the air war?"
- protomyth 6y ago
  It's an old joke. Some generals from Iraq may want to talk about how many tanks were left after the air war was lost.
  - ISL 6y ago
    One cannot easily discuss tanks in Iraq without mentioning the Battle of 73 Easting at least in passing. Superior armament, training, and tactics make a huge difference. https://www.historynet.com/learned-battle-73-easting.htm https://www.historynet.com/learned-battle-73-easting.htm TL;DR: As part of that engagement, a troop of 9 US tanks and 12 APCs encountered one of Iraq's finest tank brigades. They destroyed ~50 Iraqi tanks, 25 APCs, 40 trucks and more in 23 minutes without taking any casualties.
    - Maursault 6y ago
      > Superior armament, training, and tactics make a huge difference. The Republican Guard was absurdly outmatched. Re: training... arguably, the encounter occurred in the way it did due to (then) Captain McMaster's aggressive advancement leading to the necessity of ignoring regimental orders not to become decisively engaged. What made the decisive difference was technology, specifically, infrared sighting and laser range-finders available to and used only by one side.
- blt 6y ago
  Can you explain this joke?
  - rch 6y ago
    I believe the implication is that wars are won by taking and holding ground.
  - azernik 6y ago
    They're "sipping coffee in Paris" as in they've beaten NATO and occupied Continental Europe. They're asking "who won the air war?", with the implication that they don't really care because they won the part that mattered.
    - blt 6y ago
      Thanks!
liquidify 6y ago
I think that is pretty narrow sighted. A new major world war could be won with viruses, bacteria, drones, small robots, hacking financial systems, space lazers, genetically enhancing your population for financial domination, etc.. Air superiority is possibly a factor in some possible versions of war, but the reality is that it mostly gives us an advantage that allows us to press our will upon lesser militaries. That doesn't mean it couldn't be the dominant factor, but I imagine a major war between any super powers would be so costly to human life (since we are so good at killing now), that alternatives to traditional means of takeover would probably be preferred.
- kamaal 6y ago
  Or may be the next world war will be won by a country that doesn't fight it. China is building international super highways for trade, continent wide trade belts and inter-continent markets. I don't think the US is lucky enough to get a war now. Countries will just maintain some minimum deterrence in the form of missile forces. So that they don't get out right invaded or sanctioned. Beyond that it will just be trade war and which country has citizens lined up to work 20 hour shifts. What makes all this so easily possible is we are not making new leap frog success in science(physics) anymore. Eventually engineering everywhere will catch up with science. In short every one can and will have weapons to deter invasions and sanctions. The problem for west is not that a war will happen, but that it won't. Every once in a while the world arrives at a paradigm change where everything changes. And no matter how good you are at the old game, it doesn't matter because the game has changed. We are likely at that place now.
- XorNot 6y ago
  You're failing to define what the objectives are. Wars have objectives, that's why people fight them. The US and China have no ability to occupy each other's lands, nor interest in doing so. Neither do they benefit from out right destruction of infrastructure because that escalates to a nuclear conflict which wins no one anything. The most plausible engagement is US intervention in the strait of Taiwan to thwart a Chinese invasion and occupation. And that war is essentially conventional: it results from US fleets being out of position and internal politics making it look like a good opportunity.
azernik 6y ago
That depends on whether the air-defense laser research everyone's hyped up about produces something useful in the next few decades.

Lammy 6y ago

Sounds like our respective leaders are pitting us all against each other to farm us for the technology that enables our oppression.

david-cako 6y ago
sounds like the fundamental dilemma in existence, that an individual is a free agent in a prescriptive system. can businesses be free agents? certainly someone is excited about laser missile defense, and certainly the economy of ideas is in play.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

While we’re at it we need to remove the stigma of working on this type of software. China and Russia are plowing full speed into this technology with their best engineers. We must encourage our bright engineers to work on this tech. What will Russia and China donor they come out ahead with AI weapons? Whatever they want.