7 ms·

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

by 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.
  - enzino 5y ago
    One could think of rural hipsters with goats in america. I think characterizing Afghans as poor fighters was part of the propaganda push. "They're so weak, no way we'll lose." Turns out those goat herders have successfully expelled invaders since recorded history.
    - ARandomerDude 5y ago
      > I think characterizing Afghans as poor fighters was part of the propaganda push. Dude I was there, on the ground, house to house and village to village. These guys were laughably incompetent as a fighting force. They were hungry, dirty, poorly trained and equipped, couldn't shoot, and often killed themselves or their buddies unintentionally. We lost because of political factors, especially within the higher echelons of the military command structure. We had the tactical victories in spades but our leadership (military and political) could not translate tactical dominance into strategic momentum.
  - User23 5y ago
    The US “cannon fodder” comes from the most advanced civilian gun culture in the world. To this day the US federal government actively supports civilian marksmanship. It was entertaining seeing how the CIA taught the 2021 Taliban proper trigger discipline compared to the fingers resting on the trigger of a machine gun photos of the early 2000s. Shades of Kipling there.
    - 5y ago
- FromHoiPolloi 5y ago
  The vast majority of wars have been won by the party with stronger economy. There are of course exceptions. Especially when the theater of operation is on the other side of the globe (i.e. 1776)
- chii 5y ago
  > 20 years fighting goat herders with AK-47s, and lost they lost because they never really intended to win at all costs, like in WW2. There's no doubt that the US can win any war currently. You can't even really call afganistan a real war, since the other side is so hopelessly outgunned that they resort to guerilla warfare. It is the same in the vietnam war - the US could've spent more nukes, more severe firepower and more man power - it's just politically infeasible to do so - the technology and capability is there.
FromHoiPolloi 5y ago
The USSR was perfectly capable of wrecking havoc on itself without the fed. While the Soviet evacuation of it's industry to the east was impressive one must not forget the massive aid the USSR received from the western allies.
- enzino 5y ago
  You mean those "allies" who signed a non-aggression pact with them and then proceeded to discharge on them the largest amount of explosive material ever in the history of warfare? (Sadly that record held for only a few months.) Because those guys were well funded by the Western banksters.
  - FromHoiPolloi 5y ago
    No. I mean the support USSR received from USA after the German attack. A third of trucks used by the Red Army where US made A third of soviet airforce was US made. US also sent a lot of high octane fuel needed for the airplanes. A significant amount of food. It is very likely that the USSR would not win if not for the US material support.
  - FromHoiPolloi 5y ago
    Also... why would USSR and Germany need a non-aggression pact when they did not share any border?
roenxi 5y ago
> wars, historically, have been won by the parties with the strongest economy. That isn't in conflict with what bpodgursky said - the country with the larger economy can iterate through technologies more quickly. If their opponents come up with an idea, a highly productive nation can copy and mass produce it. If they come up with an idea, their opponents may not have the industrial base to replicate it. Although I do agree that based on the economy heuristic I'd expect China to do really well in any war. They're probably going to be better at drones than their opponents in a sustained conflict and it looks like drones win wars right now.
- enzino 5y ago
  They don't need to engage in traditional warfare. It's enough to bring their products near their enemy and ask for payment in exchange for them. You know, what merchants do. The enemy is stubborn and insists in "paying" them with fake monopoly money, they are stubborn and don't discharge their merchandise. The people in the enemy country as so accustomed to high-quality cheap products that they want them more than a corrupt government, and would gladly rise against it if, say, their traditional Christmas presents are at risk.

by enzino 5y ago

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.
- enzino 5y ago
  One could think of rural hipsters with goats in america. I think characterizing Afghans as poor fighters was part of the propaganda push. "They're so weak, no way we'll lose." Turns out those goat herders have successfully expelled invaders since recorded history.
  - ARandomerDude 5y ago
    > I think characterizing Afghans as poor fighters was part of the propaganda push. Dude I was there, on the ground, house to house and village to village. These guys were laughably incompetent as a fighting force. They were hungry, dirty, poorly trained and equipped, couldn't shoot, and often killed themselves or their buddies unintentionally. We lost because of political factors, especially within the higher echelons of the military command structure. We had the tactical victories in spades but our leadership (military and political) could not translate tactical dominance into strategic momentum.
- User23 5y ago
  The US “cannon fodder” comes from the most advanced civilian gun culture in the world. To this day the US federal government actively supports civilian marksmanship. It was entertaining seeing how the CIA taught the 2021 Taliban proper trigger discipline compared to the fingers resting on the trigger of a machine gun photos of the early 2000s. Shades of Kipling there.
  - 5y ago
FromHoiPolloi 5y ago
The vast majority of wars have been won by the party with stronger economy. There are of course exceptions. Especially when the theater of operation is on the other side of the globe (i.e. 1776)
chii 5y ago
> 20 years fighting goat herders with AK-47s, and lost they lost because they never really intended to win at all costs, like in WW2. There's no doubt that the US can win any war currently. You can't even really call afganistan a real war, since the other side is so hopelessly outgunned that they resort to guerilla warfare. It is the same in the vietnam war - the US could've spent more nukes, more severe firepower and more man power - it's just politically infeasible to do so - the technology and capability is there.

FromHoiPolloi 5y ago

The USSR was perfectly capable of wrecking havoc on itself without the fed. While the Soviet evacuation of it's industry to the east was impressive one must not forget the massive aid the USSR received from the western allies.

enzino 5y ago
You mean those "allies" who signed a non-aggression pact with them and then proceeded to discharge on them the largest amount of explosive material ever in the history of warfare? (Sadly that record held for only a few months.) Because those guys were well funded by the Western banksters.
- FromHoiPolloi 5y ago
  No. I mean the support USSR received from USA after the German attack. A third of trucks used by the Red Army where US made A third of soviet airforce was US made. US also sent a lot of high octane fuel needed for the airplanes. A significant amount of food. It is very likely that the USSR would not win if not for the US material support.
- FromHoiPolloi 5y ago
  Also... why would USSR and Germany need a non-aggression pact when they did not share any border?

roenxi 5y ago

> wars, historically, have been won by the parties with the strongest economy. That isn't in conflict with what bpodgursky said - the country with the larger economy can iterate through technologies more quickly. If their opponents come up with an idea, a highly productive nation can copy and mass produce it. If they come up with an idea, their opponents may not have the industrial base to replicate it. Although I do agree that based on the economy heuristic I'd expect China to do really well in any war. They're probably going to be better at drones than their opponents in a sustained conflict and it looks like drones win wars right now.

enzino 5y ago
They don't need to engage in traditional warfare. It's enough to bring their products near their enemy and ask for payment in exchange for them. You know, what merchants do. The enemy is stubborn and insists in "paying" them with fake monopoly money, they are stubborn and don't discharge their merchandise. The people in the enemy country as so accustomed to high-quality cheap products that they want them more than a corrupt government, and would gladly rise against it if, say, their traditional Christmas presents are at risk.