6 ms·

I'm not sure that's the right answer. The protracted Afghanistan war was "recent times", and likely involved technology that we civilians still don't know exis

I'm not sure that's the right answer. The protracted Afghanistan war was "recent times", and likely involved technology that we civilians still don't know exists yet. Creating a larger standing militia is just trying to fight toe-to-toe against a superpower with more power, which still won't be enough to win in a quick decision. If anything, utilization of improved surveillance should be prioritized more by the smaller force, to be more effective.

lazide 5y ago
Uh, the whole point of guerilla war is it isn’t toe to toe, and quick decisions don’t matter? If Russia ‘wins’, they still will probably lose (due to protracted guerrila activity draining them economically). Afghanistan never got won, even with all the wiz bang technology. The US just got tired of paying.
- cutemonster 5y ago
  If Russia "wins", Russia still loses, yes. But Putin might win, the way his brain works - how happy he'd be, with more land, even if it's barren and flat and no people
  - lazide 5y ago
    Well, one actual way to actually ‘win’ a guerilla war would be a war of complete extermination, which for everyone’s sake I hope he would not only not consider, but his soldiers would not be willing to execute. It’s only thing to pull the string on an artillery piece you think is nominally pointed at an enemy, it’s another to round up men, women, and children and machine gun them into a ditch over and over - especially when you’re stated goal is ‘denazification’.
sytelus 5y ago
US intention was not to occupy and control the county. It is very different situation. If invader wants to control the county, profits massively from all the resources and don't care about human lives there then no amount of protracted war is going to push them out.
- 8note 5y ago
  The US occupied and controlled the country for ~20 years. If that wasn't the intention, you'd think they'd have left by year 5
- ClumsyPilot 5y ago
  "profits massively from all the resources" Like what? After a war everything is bombed, destroyed or polluted. Iraq didnt even have running water. Economy was in ruins. Its not the dark ages any more, microchips are more valuable than gold and even oil needs serious infrastructure. Every war is extremely expensive - for the amount if money spent in iraq US could have bought every homeless person a penthouse. On the moon.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > Like what? Shelling nuclear power plants, for example [1]. The expensive part of modern warfare is precision. Abandon one's soul, dial up the yield and razing a nation becomes quick work. Ancient armies wiped out civilizations with less firepower than a CVN. They were simply unconcerned with being brutal. [1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/top-wrap-1-europes-largest-nuclear-power-plant-fire-after-russian-attack-mayor-2022-03-04/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/top-wrap-1-europes-la...
    - notriddle 5y ago
      Who wants to plant their flag on a lifeless husk?
      - thematrixturtle 5y ago
        Judging from their behavior in Chechnya and Afghanistan, the answer appears to be "Russia".
        cutemonster 5y ago
        "Putin" and his closest men.

lazide 5y ago

Uh, the whole point of guerilla war is it isn’t toe to toe, and quick decisions don’t matter? If Russia ‘wins’, they still will probably lose (due to protracted guerrila activity draining them economically). Afghanistan never got won, even with all the wiz bang technology. The US just got tired of paying.

cutemonster 5y ago
If Russia "wins", Russia still loses, yes. But Putin might win, the way his brain works - how happy he'd be, with more land, even if it's barren and flat and no people
- lazide 5y ago
  Well, one actual way to actually ‘win’ a guerilla war would be a war of complete extermination, which for everyone’s sake I hope he would not only not consider, but his soldiers would not be willing to execute. It’s only thing to pull the string on an artillery piece you think is nominally pointed at an enemy, it’s another to round up men, women, and children and machine gun them into a ditch over and over - especially when you’re stated goal is ‘denazification’.

sytelus 5y ago

US intention was not to occupy and control the county. It is very different situation. If invader wants to control the county, profits massively from all the resources and don't care about human lives there then no amount of protracted war is going to push them out.

8note 5y ago
The US occupied and controlled the country for ~20 years. If that wasn't the intention, you'd think they'd have left by year 5
ClumsyPilot 5y ago
"profits massively from all the resources" Like what? After a war everything is bombed, destroyed or polluted. Iraq didnt even have running water. Economy was in ruins. Its not the dark ages any more, microchips are more valuable than gold and even oil needs serious infrastructure. Every war is extremely expensive - for the amount if money spent in iraq US could have bought every homeless person a penthouse. On the moon.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > Like what? Shelling nuclear power plants, for example [1]. The expensive part of modern warfare is precision. Abandon one's soul, dial up the yield and razing a nation becomes quick work. Ancient armies wiped out civilizations with less firepower than a CVN. They were simply unconcerned with being brutal. [1] https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/top-wrap-1-europes-largest-nuclear-power-plant-fire-after-russian-attack-mayor-2022-03-04/ https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/top-wrap-1-europes-la...
  - notriddle 5y ago
    Who wants to plant their flag on a lifeless husk?
    - thematrixturtle 5y ago
      Judging from their behavior in Chechnya and Afghanistan, the answer appears to be "Russia".
      - cutemonster 5y ago
        "Putin" and his closest men.