5 ms·

That economy means we can pump out more ranged weapons than the Russians can. We could literally keep shooting missiles until they ran out of things to block th

by hajile 5y ago

That economy means we can pump out more ranged weapons than the Russians can. We could literally keep shooting missiles until they ran out of things to block them with and keep shooting until there's nothing left.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tapland 5y ago
We? Dollars are poor defense against nukes.
- politician 5y ago
  Nuclear hot war is unlikely.
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    It is far less unlikely than it is was month ago
    - Qub3d 5y ago
      And I'm about to get shot by dog with a handgun[0]. Of course nuclear is a concern to be aware of -- but that is why NATO et. al. aren't responding with boots on the ground. In our current situation, where that has been unequivocally ruled out by the NATO leadership, the risk is still tiny, and we have plenty of other more pressing systemic risks to deal with first. [0]:https://xkcd.com/1252/ https://xkcd.com/1252/
- tetsusaiga 5y ago
  True, but dollars can be converted into ICBM interceptor missiles.
  - gruez 5y ago
    ICBM interceptor missiles are far more expensive and less reliable than warheads.
ramesh31 5y ago
A lot of times I think about how brutal modern warfare would be today if it weren't for nuclear weapons. Imagine a WW2 style scenario but with smart weapons, cluster bombs, cruise missiles, modern main battle tanks, drones, and computerized artillery/MLRS. All being employed in industrial scale quantities by major nation states without the risk of nuclear war. It would be unimaginable carnage.
- explaingarlic 5y ago
  Did the firearm make warfare more or less brutal? I would have said less, if you discount the scale at which they allowed war to happen in by the transitive property that they allow reliable control of a population. Similarly, I don't think advanced weaponry make fighting more brutal. Also, MBTs are going out of style pretty fast, and some of those other things are outdated too.
  - ramesh31 5y ago
    >Did the firearm make warfare more or less brutal? It absolutely did. Ancient warfare almost never really consisted of the grand bloody battles you see in movies. A vast majority of it was siege and intimidation tactics. Routing your enemy from the field was the goal, not the annihilation of their forces. This old world of warfare persisted through the invention of early firearms into the Napoleonic era, but came to a crashing halt in the American Civil War, when generals finally had to leave those tactics behind in the face of modern artillery, repeating rifles, and industrially driven "total war". From that point on, warfare changed completely. The objective became destruction of the enemy forces, and their country's ability to wage war, and this came to a head with the American bombings of Germany and Japan in WWII; an event unparalleled in world history for its sheer brutality and number of innocents killed.
    - jessaustin 5y ago
      Indeed, ancient wars were fought to recruit/enslave farmers as often as for any other reason. If they were all killed there would have been no point.

by hajile 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

tapland 5y ago

We? Dollars are poor defense against nukes.

politician 5y ago
Nuclear hot war is unlikely.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  It is far less unlikely than it is was month ago
  - Qub3d 5y ago
    And I'm about to get shot by dog with a handgun[0]. Of course nuclear is a concern to be aware of -- but that is why NATO et. al. aren't responding with boots on the ground. In our current situation, where that has been unequivocally ruled out by the NATO leadership, the risk is still tiny, and we have plenty of other more pressing systemic risks to deal with first. [0]:https://xkcd.com/1252/ https://xkcd.com/1252/
tetsusaiga 5y ago
True, but dollars can be converted into ICBM interceptor missiles.
- gruez 5y ago
  ICBM interceptor missiles are far more expensive and less reliable than warheads.

ramesh31 5y ago

A lot of times I think about how brutal modern warfare would be today if it weren't for nuclear weapons. Imagine a WW2 style scenario but with smart weapons, cluster bombs, cruise missiles, modern main battle tanks, drones, and computerized artillery/MLRS. All being employed in industrial scale quantities by major nation states without the risk of nuclear war. It would be unimaginable carnage.

explaingarlic 5y ago
Did the firearm make warfare more or less brutal? I would have said less, if you discount the scale at which they allowed war to happen in by the transitive property that they allow reliable control of a population. Similarly, I don't think advanced weaponry make fighting more brutal. Also, MBTs are going out of style pretty fast, and some of those other things are outdated too.
- ramesh31 5y ago
  >Did the firearm make warfare more or less brutal? It absolutely did. Ancient warfare almost never really consisted of the grand bloody battles you see in movies. A vast majority of it was siege and intimidation tactics. Routing your enemy from the field was the goal, not the annihilation of their forces. This old world of warfare persisted through the invention of early firearms into the Napoleonic era, but came to a crashing halt in the American Civil War, when generals finally had to leave those tactics behind in the face of modern artillery, repeating rifles, and industrially driven "total war". From that point on, warfare changed completely. The objective became destruction of the enemy forces, and their country's ability to wage war, and this came to a head with the American bombings of Germany and Japan in WWII; an event unparalleled in world history for its sheer brutality and number of innocents killed.
  - jessaustin 5y ago
    Indeed, ancient wars were fought to recruit/enslave farmers as often as for any other reason. If they were all killed there would have been no point.