6 ms·

Imagine if we held a war, and nobody could afford to come?

benjohnson 6y ago
It’s for this reason that people (Bohr for example) who made the atomic bomb saw a ray of hope - it made large scale war too expensive to even try given that your enemy would nuke you back.
- asdff 6y ago
  That is unless we all sign paperwork saying we won't use these big huge wastes of GDP we've stockpiled like someone with a hoarding complex, and resume war as usual.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    You don't even need the paper. Just the political will on both sides. That is what mutually assured destruction is about: I don't trust them to not use theirs, but I can assure they don't win if they do. It has been hotly debated on if mutually assured destruction is actually why we haven't got into a nuclear war or not. You can take either side of the debate with no way to know for sure who is right.
hindsightbias 6y ago
People are always confused when I say I'm the F-35s biggest fan - because disarmament isn't a viable political option but aircraft programs like this effectively make it a practical one.
- scarmig 6y ago
  It reminds me of a funny little anecdote. In 1989, the USA instituted an arms embargo on China after Tiananmen (which was itself performed with tanks outfitted with American-made guns). However, President Bush allowed a certain existing deal ("Peace Pearl") that would help modernize the PLA's airforce to continue based on the requests of certain well-connected military contractors. But in 1990, China cancelled the deal unilaterally, despite it being the only access they had to Western military tech. Ultimately it went with Israeli and Russian sources. Why? The US arms exporters were running into massive cost overruns and development delays. China thought it was some kind of intentional sabotage, but it was nothing of the sort: it was just the general fucked-upness of American military procurement running into the realities of a culture unused to that level of fucked-upness. An international arms embargo couldn't accomplish the disarmament of China of American weaponry, but the brokenness of the American arms industry could.
- quesera 6y ago
  That would make a lot more sense if the competing militaries had the same problems. Shifting the power balance is unlikely to result in a safer world for most.
  - hindsightbias 6y ago
    The F-35 doesnt have the legs to be relevant vs China and the Russians are poor.
yabones 6y ago
If we held a war, all of these fancy planes would be gone in the first week. So would all the aircraft carriers, a good number of ships, and likely all of the stealth bombers too. That's the funny thing about modern military tech, it only really works correctly in peacetime when the wars are fought against poorly equipped insurgents & rebel forces. "Stealth" only works on very old radar systems, any 1st world country has the capabilities to detect a B2 or an F35. After the second month of conflict, the only equipment left would be mid century jets that can be quickly built in single factories, without the complicated supply chains that F35 was built around. That's what matters, mass production and numbers - not $2B jets that can be shot down by a $100K missile system strapped to the back of a truck.
- varjag 6y ago
  While most radars can detect a stealth fighter, few systems are able to hold a lock on them. E.g. no system that Russia or China currently possess.
  - dmpk2k 6y ago
    That's one reason why search and targeting radars are not the same thing. Missiles are fired (and aircraft are sent) in the general area of the detected aircraft, where they'll pick up the enemy aircraft on X-band more easily. And don't forget the networking. It won't just be the one targeting radar; networked missile groups have existed for decades. This idea that Russia and China can't "lock on" assumes that the Russians and Chinese are idiots. They've been busy trying to improve the odds of a stealth kill ever since the F-117A went public, and probably before. LO helps, but it's not magic.
    - varjag 6y ago
      Yes, there are no Russian and Chinese systems that can maintain weapons lock on a stealth fighter. Not airborne and not ground based. Russia scrambles to gain this capability with its latest s-300 upgrade (s-500), but so far it's not operational. This is why everyone in the world is queued to order F-35s: it's the world's only operational multirole stealth fighter you can buy, and it has no peer adversaries yet. Goes against the popular Internet wisdom of how crap F-35 are, but they sell like hot cakes.
asdff 6y ago
Governments have realized it's easier and more politically favorable to pay and train local militias to shoot each other. It's taking a page from the corporate playbook of creating a shell company to hide liability.
bluGill 6y ago
The problem is what if we have a war and the other guy decided to bankrupt his country to afford the war, while decided we couldn't afford it and so didn't build as much. The end result is we lose the war and have to pay off the debt of the other country. There is no good answer once war is on the table. Keeping war off the table should be everyone's priority, but unfortunately it only takes one evil dictator to force you into war, so peace isn't always possible.
- nickik 6y ago
  Yeah all those evil dictators who constantly want to attack super-powerful much bigger countries. Just incredible how often that happens. I mean super-powers with nuclear weapons just constantly have to fight of these dictators. What an odd as argument. This has literally never happened.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    You seem to have forgotten about WWII. (the dictators didn't have nuclear weapons, but it otherwise describes what you say never happens)

It’s for this reason that people (Bohr for example) who made the atomic bomb saw a ray of hope - it made large scale war too expensive to even try given that your enemy would nuke you back.

asdff 6y ago
That is unless we all sign paperwork saying we won't use these big huge wastes of GDP we've stockpiled like someone with a hoarding complex, and resume war as usual.
- bluGill 6y ago
  You don't even need the paper. Just the political will on both sides. That is what mutually assured destruction is about: I don't trust them to not use theirs, but I can assure they don't win if they do. It has been hotly debated on if mutually assured destruction is actually why we haven't got into a nuclear war or not. You can take either side of the debate with no way to know for sure who is right.

hindsightbias 6y ago

People are always confused when I say I'm the F-35s biggest fan - because disarmament isn't a viable political option but aircraft programs like this effectively make it a practical one.

scarmig 6y ago
It reminds me of a funny little anecdote. In 1989, the USA instituted an arms embargo on China after Tiananmen (which was itself performed with tanks outfitted with American-made guns). However, President Bush allowed a certain existing deal ("Peace Pearl") that would help modernize the PLA's airforce to continue based on the requests of certain well-connected military contractors. But in 1990, China cancelled the deal unilaterally, despite it being the only access they had to Western military tech. Ultimately it went with Israeli and Russian sources. Why? The US arms exporters were running into massive cost overruns and development delays. China thought it was some kind of intentional sabotage, but it was nothing of the sort: it was just the general fucked-upness of American military procurement running into the realities of a culture unused to that level of fucked-upness. An international arms embargo couldn't accomplish the disarmament of China of American weaponry, but the brokenness of the American arms industry could.
quesera 6y ago
That would make a lot more sense if the competing militaries had the same problems. Shifting the power balance is unlikely to result in a safer world for most.
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  The F-35 doesnt have the legs to be relevant vs China and the Russians are poor.

yabones 6y ago

If we held a war, all of these fancy planes would be gone in the first week. So would all the aircraft carriers, a good number of ships, and likely all of the stealth bombers too. That's the funny thing about modern military tech, it only really works correctly in peacetime when the wars are fought against poorly equipped insurgents & rebel forces. "Stealth" only works on very old radar systems, any 1st world country has the capabilities to detect a B2 or an F35. After the second month of conflict, the only equipment left would be mid century jets that can be quickly built in single factories, without the complicated supply chains that F35 was built around. That's what matters, mass production and numbers - not $2B jets that can be shot down by a $100K missile system strapped to the back of a truck.

varjag 6y ago
While most radars can detect a stealth fighter, few systems are able to hold a lock on them. E.g. no system that Russia or China currently possess.
- dmpk2k 6y ago
  That's one reason why search and targeting radars are not the same thing. Missiles are fired (and aircraft are sent) in the general area of the detected aircraft, where they'll pick up the enemy aircraft on X-band more easily. And don't forget the networking. It won't just be the one targeting radar; networked missile groups have existed for decades. This idea that Russia and China can't "lock on" assumes that the Russians and Chinese are idiots. They've been busy trying to improve the odds of a stealth kill ever since the F-117A went public, and probably before. LO helps, but it's not magic.
  - varjag 6y ago
    Yes, there are no Russian and Chinese systems that can maintain weapons lock on a stealth fighter. Not airborne and not ground based. Russia scrambles to gain this capability with its latest s-300 upgrade (s-500), but so far it's not operational. This is why everyone in the world is queued to order F-35s: it's the world's only operational multirole stealth fighter you can buy, and it has no peer adversaries yet. Goes against the popular Internet wisdom of how crap F-35 are, but they sell like hot cakes.

asdff 6y ago

Governments have realized it's easier and more politically favorable to pay and train local militias to shoot each other. It's taking a page from the corporate playbook of creating a shell company to hide liability.

bluGill 6y ago

The problem is what if we have a war and the other guy decided to bankrupt his country to afford the war, while decided we couldn't afford it and so didn't build as much. The end result is we lose the war and have to pay off the debt of the other country. There is no good answer once war is on the table. Keeping war off the table should be everyone's priority, but unfortunately it only takes one evil dictator to force you into war, so peace isn't always possible.

nickik 6y ago
Yeah all those evil dictators who constantly want to attack super-powerful much bigger countries. Just incredible how often that happens. I mean super-powers with nuclear weapons just constantly have to fight of these dictators. What an odd as argument. This has literally never happened.
- bluGill 6y ago
  You seem to have forgotten about WWII. (the dictators didn't have nuclear weapons, but it otherwise describes what you say never happens)