4 ms·
I think if you return to first principles, where the military exists as a tool of the state to conduct policy through violence (or threat of it) then most of th
by duped 5y ago
I think if you return to first principles, where the military exists as a tool of the state to conduct policy through violence (or threat of it) then most of the projects don't make sense given the abject failure of the military to achieve success over the last few decades.
A better use of technology for this kind of policy would be on offensive and defensive cyber capabilities, control and monitoring of social or media networks and telecommunications. The CCP seems to understand that those are better tools for conducting diplomacy with 21st century violence more than making it easier for a soldier to hit someone with a bullet, since that is mostly a solved problem (shoot more of them and care less about who they hit)
- goagw 5y agoDefensive cyber capabilities make sense but I dont know what offensive capabilities means when you are just completely cut off from Chinese networks. Maybe shoot a few Zuckerbergs into China or something...
- barry-cotter 5y ago> I think if you return to first principles, where the military exists as a tool of the state to conduct policy through violence (or threat of it) then most of the projects don't make sense given the abject failure of the military to achieve success over the last few decades. Tell it to Azerbaijan. The fact that the US didn't have a coincidence of plan and excution sufficient to achieve anything doesn't mean others can't, even with vastly fewer material resources.
- HWR_14 5y agoThe US has successfully conducted a lot of policy through violence and the military. As you point out, the purpose of the US military is not nation building, and it has been those steps that failed.