3 ms·

I don't think much has really changed except that the scales have fallen from the eyes of most Western countries. The military has always had the same pretty mu

I don't think much has really changed except that the scales have fallen from the eyes of most Western countries. The military has always had the same pretty much the same posture towards Russia wrt threats and nuclear deterrents. I see the spread of disinformation and propaganda as something that will inoculate the populace ultimately. I think Russia (and China) has done the West a favor. Hopefully the West will start offering integration into our economies as a reward for democratic reforms instead of as an incentive, because god knows that hasn't produced the desired result.

javajosh 5y ago
I like your comment and its practical optimism. I hope you're right about disinformation innoculation; the science works out because it's hard to stay in emotional disequilibrium for so long! And it really does take long time (years) to get a handle on the troll phenomena and your reaction to it, so perhaps these are the growing pains of a bouncing baby information society!
pmoriarty 5y ago
"The military has always had the same pretty much the same posture towards Russia wrt threats and nuclear deterrents." That's not my understanding. I'm far from an expert, but from what I've read there was a radical change in the US military from a focus on large-scale warfare to small-scale warfare focused on urban combat and quick responses to multiple small threats. There are also way, way less nuclear weapons (on both sides) than there used to be. I think there were something like 30,000 nuclear weapons in the US at the peak of nuclear proliferation, and now there are closer to 5,000 (and roughly the same in Russia). So the military posture of both countries has definitely changed. Unfortunately, it seems we're headed back towards a Cold War, if not a hot war... so the arms race is likely to heat up and preparations for large-scale combat will likely increase. This will make the world a much more dangerous place.
- rawgabbit 5y ago
  The change you are referencing is an unwelcome and short-sighted change. After the Vietnam War, the US military focused on confronting a possible armada of Soviet tanks flooding Europe. During the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, the US military had to relearn how to fight insurgencies and perform nation building. The top military brass have to obey the President of the USA. But I would argue, the US military will readily admit we suck at insurgencies and nation building and would argue against the wisdom of doing so. The US military wants to deter aggression from the likes of Putin and other conventional armies. Having nothing but Special Forces and urban warfare specialists is not going to deter Putin from attacking Poland or Kim Jung Un from attacking South Korea.
  - pmoriarty 5y ago
    I honestly don't understand what the point of having large conventional forces is. We know a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia will lead to nuclear war, and all those conventional forces will be wiped out along with the countries they're supposed to protect. It just wastes money and deludes trigger happy people in to believing a war between nuclear powers can be "won".
    - rawgabbit 5y ago
      It is not about “us”. The aggressor thinks about what he can get away with. Putin knows the US will push the button if the mainland is about to be lost. What about a piece of Poland? Especially if there is no conventional army to counter Putin’s. In his mind, he may think he can get away with it.

javajosh 5y ago

I like your comment and its practical optimism. I hope you're right about disinformation innoculation; the science works out because it's hard to stay in emotional disequilibrium for so long! And it really does take long time (years) to get a handle on the troll phenomena and your reaction to it, so perhaps these are the growing pains of a bouncing baby information society!

pmoriarty 5y ago

"The military has always had the same pretty much the same posture towards Russia wrt threats and nuclear deterrents." That's not my understanding. I'm far from an expert, but from what I've read there was a radical change in the US military from a focus on large-scale warfare to small-scale warfare focused on urban combat and quick responses to multiple small threats. There are also way, way less nuclear weapons (on both sides) than there used to be. I think there were something like 30,000 nuclear weapons in the US at the peak of nuclear proliferation, and now there are closer to 5,000 (and roughly the same in Russia). So the military posture of both countries has definitely changed. Unfortunately, it seems we're headed back towards a Cold War, if not a hot war... so the arms race is likely to heat up and preparations for large-scale combat will likely increase. This will make the world a much more dangerous place.

rawgabbit 5y ago
The change you are referencing is an unwelcome and short-sighted change. After the Vietnam War, the US military focused on confronting a possible armada of Soviet tanks flooding Europe. During the Iraq/Afghanistan Wars, the US military had to relearn how to fight insurgencies and perform nation building. The top military brass have to obey the President of the USA. But I would argue, the US military will readily admit we suck at insurgencies and nation building and would argue against the wisdom of doing so. The US military wants to deter aggression from the likes of Putin and other conventional armies. Having nothing but Special Forces and urban warfare specialists is not going to deter Putin from attacking Poland or Kim Jung Un from attacking South Korea.
- pmoriarty 5y ago
  I honestly don't understand what the point of having large conventional forces is. We know a direct confrontation between NATO and Russia will lead to nuclear war, and all those conventional forces will be wiped out along with the countries they're supposed to protect. It just wastes money and deludes trigger happy people in to believing a war between nuclear powers can be "won".
  - rawgabbit 5y ago
    It is not about “us”. The aggressor thinks about what he can get away with. Putin knows the US will push the button if the mainland is about to be lost. What about a piece of Poland? Especially if there is no conventional army to counter Putin’s. In his mind, he may think he can get away with it.