8 ms·

One has to wonder how much of military "tech" is simply fake. Until its use is demonstrated in war (which i absolutely do not advocate, and is known to affected

by enzino 5y ago

One has to wonder how much of military "tech" is simply fake. Until its use is demonstrated in war (which i absolutely do not advocate, and is known to affected by propaganda as well), all the incentives from weapons' manufacturers and buyers are to exaggerate features and effectiveness. The main victim is the gullible public, who funds the military-industrial complex with taxes.

ArtWomb 5y ago
Arthur C. Clark's "Superiority" comes to mind ;)
newaccount2021 5y ago
Or just catastrophically malfunction. What % of ICBMs launched from silos in the Midwest will fail and land inside the US? What % of those actually trigger?
bpodgursky 5y ago
Even if 90% of military tech is fake (and I think "fake" more usually means "we think it works, but turns out it doesn't"), the other 10% can completely tip the scales in a war, to disastrous effect (to the loser). History has a lot of examples of technology which seemed preposterous until it completely turned the tides of battles or wars (radar, tanks, mustard gas, atomic bombs...) Drone warfare is pretty clearly in this camp. Not a lot of people followed the Armenia / Azerbaijan war last year, but Armenia was fighting a war from 10 years ago (trench + urban warfare), and they got slaughtered by armed drones. It was a wipeout. Nobody wants to be the Armenians in the next war... and often that means wasting a lot of money figuring out what the next breakthrough is.
- enzino 5y ago
  your comment shows little knowledge of history. wars, historically, have been won by the parties with the strongest economy. that's even true for pre-historical conquests, as far as we know. ww2 was won by the midwest industrial base, and (mostly), the soviet's. check out the ussr industrial growth in the 30s. (they didn't have the fed wrecking havoc.) today there's no match for china, this is not even controversial. thankfully they're smart enough to understand that war doesn't make sense.
  - remarkEon 5y ago
    What. The US spent 20 years fighting goat herders with AK-47s, and lost. The CCCP did the same and also lost, albeit they left actually left when they realized is was a mess (with a little help from CIA, sure). There are other obvious examples. Economic might is a major determinant in how well you can prosecute a war but it is by no means the only thing that matters.
    - enzino 5y ago
      unless you live on the moon, it should be clear by now that the afghanistan occupation's main objective was to enrich contractors. the mission was accomplished.
      - remarkEon 5y ago
        I was there, so believe me I’m plenty familiar with the grift that went on. But your characterization of economic might Uber alles is not accurate, which was my point.
        enzino 5y ago
        My objective is not to belittle the contribution of individuals in war efforts. Clearly wars are won by soldiers. But technology matters. Cement to make roads. Steel to make ak47s (which are much more valuable, per kilo of raw material, than drones). Coal to power it all. And so on.
    - s5300 5y ago
      Mujahideen that turned into Taliban were literally trained by the CIA. Calling them goat herders is either ignorance, racism, or pushing whatever agenda you're trying to push. Unless you're specifically speaking of the lowest caliber grunts of their infantry, in which theirs are nearly the same as ours. Mostly uneducated cannon fodder. But yes, the US completely intentionally drew out the 20 years of war to put money in the military industrial complexes pockets. The Taliban tried to surrender 2-3 months after we first attacked them IIRC, and we said no.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  Yeah, I’ve been waiting for a full reading of last year’s Armenian/Azerbaijani conflict but haven’t seen anything that runs down the full event. Any links? Thus far I’ve found some YouTube or other video clips. Looking for a more technical exploration of how that tech was used.
  - mNovak 5y ago
    I recall The War Zone [1] having pretty good coverage of the tech component. [1] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone
  - wikidani 5y ago
    I believe there's a fairly comprehensive report on the Bayraktar TB2 and its use on this blog [oryxspioenkop.com]. You might want to check out popular front on instagram as well
    - TooSmugToFail 5y ago
      Great source, thanks!
throw3849 5y ago
Most countries have real safety concerns and their weapons are VERY effective.
wolverine876 5y ago
It serves another purpose: Deterring potential enemies and giving confidence to allies. For example, the US has contributed to international peace East Asia for generations in part by having underlying muscle available. And today, if the US military tech was removed, I have a hard time imagining that alliances with Japan, S Korea, and others, not to mention Taiwan's freedom, would survive.
- pasabagi 5y ago
  Wait, what? Did you miss the bit where they bombed North Korea until they had killed about one fifth of the population, and destroyed basically every form of standing shelter? Or the war in Vietnam? Or the support for South Korean dictators, even as they murdered their own people? If that's a contribution to international peace, I hate to imagine what you'd think was a contribution to regional instability. Even on a modern level, I think it's arguable that the 90's gulf war, and then the 2000's one, were the drivers behind a massive up-arming amongst states around the world that saw themselves as on the US's potential 'regime change' hitlist. It's often touted as a reason for China's massive arms buildup, for example.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - shepherdjerred 5y ago
    The US has done plenty of terrible things. It’s impossible to be certain of how much of the relative peace we have today is because of the United States. Overall I’d say it’s probably done more good than harm.
    - codr7 5y ago
      War is peace?
      - kqr 5y ago
        No. The threat of war looming over 40 something countries for 60 years has kept them from going to war with each other, at the cost of having to go to war in a handful of countries for some years. The country-years of war in the region between 1950 and 2010 could potentially have been in the order of 1000s, but has been in the low 100s. I'm not saying US threat of war did actually prevent a lot of smaller wars in the region to occur. I'm also not saying if it did, that it was a good thing. (Maybe like with forest fires, many small wars are better than a few big ones.) But that's the argument used by people favouring this US threat of war.
anonporridge 5y ago
I think that's partially why the United States is perpetually in some kind of war. If you're the global superpower with an empire built on military might, you have to constantly practice your craft, and nothing beats the real thing. And putting your capabilities on public display in a real theatre provides the entire world with the proof of violence (PoV) you are able to summon.

by enzino 5y ago

ArtWomb 5y ago

Arthur C. Clark's "Superiority" comes to mind ;)

newaccount2021 5y ago

Or just catastrophically malfunction. What % of ICBMs launched from silos in the Midwest will fail and land inside the US? What % of those actually trigger?

bpodgursky 5y ago

Even if 90% of military tech is fake (and I think "fake" more usually means "we think it works, but turns out it doesn't"), the other 10% can completely tip the scales in a war, to disastrous effect (to the loser). History has a lot of examples of technology which seemed preposterous until it completely turned the tides of battles or wars (radar, tanks, mustard gas, atomic bombs...) Drone warfare is pretty clearly in this camp. Not a lot of people followed the Armenia / Azerbaijan war last year, but Armenia was fighting a war from 10 years ago (trench + urban warfare), and they got slaughtered by armed drones. It was a wipeout. Nobody wants to be the Armenians in the next war... and often that means wasting a lot of money figuring out what the next breakthrough is.

enzino 5y ago
your comment shows little knowledge of history. wars, historically, have been won by the parties with the strongest economy. that's even true for pre-historical conquests, as far as we know. ww2 was won by the midwest industrial base, and (mostly), the soviet's. check out the ussr industrial growth in the 30s. (they didn't have the fed wrecking havoc.) today there's no match for china, this is not even controversial. thankfully they're smart enough to understand that war doesn't make sense.
- remarkEon 5y ago
  What. The US spent 20 years fighting goat herders with AK-47s, and lost. The CCCP did the same and also lost, albeit they left actually left when they realized is was a mess (with a little help from CIA, sure). There are other obvious examples. Economic might is a major determinant in how well you can prosecute a war but it is by no means the only thing that matters.
  - enzino 5y ago
    unless you live on the moon, it should be clear by now that the afghanistan occupation's main objective was to enrich contractors. the mission was accomplished.
    - remarkEon 5y ago
      I was there, so believe me I’m plenty familiar with the grift that went on. But your characterization of economic might Uber alles is not accurate, which was my point.
      - enzino 5y ago
        My objective is not to belittle the contribution of individuals in war efforts. Clearly wars are won by soldiers. But technology matters. Cement to make roads. Steel to make ak47s (which are much more valuable, per kilo of raw material, than drones). Coal to power it all. And so on.
  - s5300 5y ago
    Mujahideen that turned into Taliban were literally trained by the CIA. Calling them goat herders is either ignorance, racism, or pushing whatever agenda you're trying to push. Unless you're specifically speaking of the lowest caliber grunts of their infantry, in which theirs are nearly the same as ours. Mostly uneducated cannon fodder. But yes, the US completely intentionally drew out the 20 years of war to put money in the military industrial complexes pockets. The Taliban tried to surrender 2-3 months after we first attacked them IIRC, and we said no.
remarkEon 5y ago
Yeah, I’ve been waiting for a full reading of last year’s Armenian/Azerbaijani conflict but haven’t seen anything that runs down the full event. Any links? Thus far I’ve found some YouTube or other video clips. Looking for a more technical exploration of how that tech was used.
- mNovak 5y ago
  I recall The War Zone [1] having pretty good coverage of the tech component. [1] https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone
- wikidani 5y ago
  I believe there's a fairly comprehensive report on the Bayraktar TB2 and its use on this blog [oryxspioenkop.com]. You might want to check out popular front on instagram as well
  - TooSmugToFail 5y ago
    Great source, thanks!

throw3849 5y ago

Most countries have real safety concerns and their weapons are VERY effective.

wolverine876 5y ago

It serves another purpose: Deterring potential enemies and giving confidence to allies. For example, the US has contributed to international peace East Asia for generations in part by having underlying muscle available. And today, if the US military tech was removed, I have a hard time imagining that alliances with Japan, S Korea, and others, not to mention Taiwan's freedom, would survive.

pasabagi 5y ago
Wait, what? Did you miss the bit where they bombed North Korea until they had killed about one fifth of the population, and destroyed basically every form of standing shelter? Or the war in Vietnam? Or the support for South Korean dictators, even as they murdered their own people? If that's a contribution to international peace, I hate to imagine what you'd think was a contribution to regional instability. Even on a modern level, I think it's arguable that the 90's gulf war, and then the 2000's one, were the drivers behind a massive up-arming amongst states around the world that saw themselves as on the US's potential 'regime change' hitlist. It's often touted as a reason for China's massive arms buildup, for example.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- shepherdjerred 5y ago
  The US has done plenty of terrible things. It’s impossible to be certain of how much of the relative peace we have today is because of the United States. Overall I’d say it’s probably done more good than harm.
  - codr7 5y ago
    War is peace?
    - kqr 5y ago
      No. The threat of war looming over 40 something countries for 60 years has kept them from going to war with each other, at the cost of having to go to war in a handful of countries for some years. The country-years of war in the region between 1950 and 2010 could potentially have been in the order of 1000s, but has been in the low 100s. I'm not saying US threat of war did actually prevent a lot of smaller wars in the region to occur. I'm also not saying if it did, that it was a good thing. (Maybe like with forest fires, many small wars are better than a few big ones.) But that's the argument used by people favouring this US threat of war.

anonporridge 5y ago

I think that's partially why the United States is perpetually in some kind of war. If you're the global superpower with an empire built on military might, you have to constantly practice your craft, and nothing beats the real thing. And putting your capabilities on public display in a real theatre provides the entire world with the proof of violence (PoV) you are able to summon.