19 ms·

Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 TLDW: Tank h

Yes it does. See "The Chieftain: No, The Tank Is Not Dead" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lI7T650RTT8 TLDW: Tank has a task on a battlefield and fact that you can easily kill it won't take that task away. Same goes for infantry and they are not going away either. On the other hand we don't see battleships anymore, because big guns were replaced by precise missiles with much more range.

kashkhan 4y ago
Maybe war shouldn't have a future and not a role. We've had enough of the european way of war.
- mike-the-mikado 4y ago
  Arguably the war is happening because we had prepared for it insufficiently.
  - the_af 4y ago
    It's hard to understand how "we" could not have prepared sufficiently. This conflict in Europe isn't a spur of the moment thing. Arguably it could have been in the making since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but even if you don't go that far back, then at least from 2014. It certainly didn't come out of the blue! I'll make my comment more assertive: I think "we" (for almost any value of "we") prepared for this. Some assumptions were proven wrong, like it often happens with war. But a lot of it is playing out like many assumed it would, or at least, it's playing out so that some factions can observe what modern war fought with modern weapons looks like.
    - vorpalhex 4y ago
      I think EU specifically dropped it's defense and R&D budgets and became too weak, making land grabs by Russia possible. There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland.
      - foverzar 4y ago
        > There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland. When did that happen?
        vorpalhex 4y ago
        https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/12/russia-threatens-retaliatory-steps-if-finland-joins-nato.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/12/russia-threatens-retaliatory... https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/russia-threatens-nukes-for-us-uk-finland-if-nato-expands/ https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/russia-threatens-nukes-for-us-... https://www.newsweek.com/russia-threatens-finland-sweden-nato-ukraine-invasion-1682715 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-threatens-finland-sweden-nat... This was major news and carried by almost every outlet. It is almost certainly just bluster, but escalatory bluster for sure.
    - whimsicalism 4y ago
      If war was the predictable outcome, Ukraine should probably have been more dovish towards Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the East, ie. not banning Russian language, not shelling cities. Obviously what Russia has done is reprehensible, but if Ukraine saw war as incoming I don't see why they took these aggravating steps.
      - the_af 4y ago
        Let's just say I find your comment very on point. I would like to discuss this, but I don't think this is the best venue, and also this is a very sensitive topic and people are likely to be upset. And I wouldn't blame them. I did want to say your observation is astute.
      - int_19h 4y ago
        Russian language isn't banned anywhere in Ukraine. Indeed, 5 minutes of combat footage from the Ukrainian side will quickly show that the majority of their armed forces speak Russian. Even Russians themselves reflected on this, noting that most volunteer forces they have faced so far come not from the Western (majority-Ukrainian-speaking) regions of Ukraine, but rather from Kharkiv, Dnipro etc. Their explanation is that all those people are "brainwashed by Ukrainian Nazis". There is some real contention with the status of Russian as 1) the official government language, and 2) the official education language in schools. But I don't think it's fair to phrase that as "banning Russian".
        notahacker 4y ago
        And anyway, the Ukrainian population did take those steps when most of them voted for a political outsider from a Russian speaking background seen as sympathetic to Russian speaking culture and somewhat willing to negotiate better relations with the "independent Republics". Putin interpreted that as a sign of weakness...
        whimsicalism 4y ago
        It is illegal to have government communication in Russian or to have a Russian language radio station in Ukraine. I would call that banning Russian language from some aspects of public life.
    - cestith 4y ago
      Ukraine has, in fact, been partly occupied and claimed by a foreign power since 2014.
- malwrar 4y ago
  What do you propose instead? A state is always going to need a military to defend its stability and continuity from existential threats. Despite what the internet would have you believe, the world is a massive place with a vast diaspora of peoples with tons of different contradictory policy preferences. I don’t think we could give up preparing for the next fight if we wanted to.
  - bnralt 4y ago
    What was the last successful offensive war? When was the last time American tanks were successful in creating a positive outcome for United States citizens (which, theoretically, is the entire reason they're built)? You could make an argument for 30 years ago, but you'd need to go back closer to 70 years for a strong case. The other poster raises a valid point that war, as it is typically been envisioned, might be far less prominent than people realize. The argument is that the tank has a task on the battlefield, but we should ask ourselves how much that battlefield matters in this day and age.
    - kashkhan 4y ago
      Right. When did the US last win a war? Even with unlimited weapons, nobody wins any more. Sure you can destroy governments like Saddam and Gaddafi, but you don't win the hearts and minds, and eventually you lose.
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        So do what Russia does. Deport the unfavorable people to Siberia. Then import the willing population into Ukraine. Given the Russian "tactics" and "strategy" for its war in Ukraine, it is clearly a threat of cultural genocide. Russia aims to destroy the Ukrainian people and their history, and disperse them into Siberia where they won't be able to become a threat. --------- USA tries to "win hearts and minds" because we've convinced ourselves that we're the "good guys", and want to win under certain conditions. Without hearts and minds, we lose and we're willing to accept that. When Russia fights, they're not aiming for that at all. Its just destruction. Even against "brother Slavs", its better for Ukraine to be destroyed than for it to play nice with NATO (or so they want to believe). Under these circumstances, the only solution is to arm the Ukrainians and give them a fighting chance. Otherwise, the Ukrainians will be completely, and utterly, annihilated as a people. ---------- Russia has the will and the right strategy here in broad strokes. They fortunately, don't seem to have the right tactics or approach. So it looks like the Russians will fail. But even as they fail, they will cause hundreds-of-billions, maybe trillions of dollars worth of damages, and likely cause the largest famine event the world has ever seen. Better weapons and a better defense could have prevented the Ukrainians from losing their coastland. Better weapons could have allowed Ukraine to continue their grain exports. Better weapons and defenses could have protected Ukrainian's grain silos, which are being blown up and pillaged.
- msla 4y ago
  > We've had enough of the european way of war. So trying another region's way of war would be an improvement, then?
  - kashkhan 4y ago
    Not many continents imposing war on europe past millennium. Europe imposed war on everyone and tried to exterminate everyone else. Do better.
    - kansface 4y ago
      Ignoring Africa, Asia and North America more recently, sure!
- echelon 4y ago
  There will never be peace. If there are resources held without power, someone will take them. The fact that the world is as peaceful as it is now is remarkable. It's because of MAD and the high cost of war. What we revolt at is the industrial scale of modern war. But war has been with us since prehistory. Our ancestors killed, raped, and pillaged. Far enough back in time, and they even ate one another. Look to nature. It evolved thousands of types of killing machines to harness the energy of other creatures. Lions eat wild prey alive. Hornets lay their larva inside live hosts so that they can feed. Orcas play with their food for sport. Just imagine what happens when we get AGI or BCI. It's easy to be pacifist and condemn war. And we should hope for that. But we also have to protect our sovereignty and safety, and that means maintaining an adequate defense with weapons, food, energy, and supply chain. Our comfort comes at great cost.
- aetherson 4y ago
  What would your current advice be for the Ukraine?
  - kashkhan 4y ago
    Getting more tanks ain't it. More war also not it. Russian empire needs to be dismantled. But unlikely UKR waging war on russia will do it.
    - brokencode 4y ago
      So basically you have put no thought into this except that you don’t like war. I think most people will agree with you that war is bad. But if you get attacked, then all you can do is either give up or defend yourself. Afghanistan chose to give up to the Taliban, and now their rights are being taken away. Ukraine chose to defend themselves, and the jury is still out on whether they’ll be successful and what the cost will be. But there is no third option where you simply will war out of existence. Diplomacy works with certain enemies, and that will hopefully be the outcome in Ukraine too, but that too will come with a heavy price, such as giving up major amounts of territory.
      - kashkhan 4y ago
        Plenty of people have put thought into what to do to end war. You don't need original thoughts from me. The natural corollary of someone attacking you is not to get into an arms race. Afghanistan didn't choose Taliban. Pakistan and Saudi chose Taliban and armed them enough to take over. War obviously works. What's going to happen in UKR is that the warlike will win and then naturally turn their guns towards the locals. Exactly like in Afghanistan. You can arm them as much as you like, but they will not turn into gandhis with an excess of guns. My point is not that war doesn't work. My point is that we should all be fighting against war.
        vel0city 4y ago
        > My point is that we should all be fighting against war. By what, asking nicely?
- dageshi 4y ago
  You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
  - pizzachan 4y ago
    That’s what I tell people about politics.
    - I-M-S 4y ago
      OP is paraphrasing a quote by Leon Trotsky which originally refers to politics.
- bombcar 4y ago
  > I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. As long as there are conflicting desires, there will be conflict, and it can break out into war. However, it's possible that war can be reduced, but it may require things we're not quite ready for, such as the end of Westphalian states.
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    I'm ready
- skylanh 4y ago
  This is sort of my reference point from a salient and personal perspective on why government's have departments of defense. TEDxAmsterdam: Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0 Link to TED profile: https://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_van_uhm https://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_van_uhm "Peter van Uhm [was from 17 April 2008 until 28 June 2012] the Netherlands' chief of defense" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Uhm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Uhm
  - kashkhan 4y ago
    A government needs to wage war at some level to exist. To eliminate war the motives for war created by governments need to be addressed. There is only one logical outcome, once you decide you don't want war.
    - phillc73 4y ago
      Dispense with the government?
      - int_19h 4y ago
        Governments are fine. It's states that are the problem. Nation-states (whether ethnic or civic) especially, because they have motivations to wage war that are connected to the fiction that forms their core: "this territory is historically ours", and "you're treating our people poorly". Both are in full display in Ukraine today, but just look at any "Greater ..." article in Wikipedia to see numerous other examples.
        Mountain_Skies 4y ago
        Unless you somehow achieve global equality in all things, there's always going to be one group that wants something another group has. Combine that with democracy and you get a government that's happy to assist them with taking it.
- gorgoiler 4y ago
  “War is the continuation of politics by other means.” Armed conflict is driven by foreign policy which itself is, ultimately, politics. (Unless it’s a crusade.)
echelon 4y ago
Is there a good rundown of every piece of weaponry and its corresponding utility and strategy somewhere? I'd love to update or correct my understanding of tanks, artillery, HIMARS, aircraft carriers, cruisers, littoral combat, submarine classes, F-22, F-35, AWACS, etc.
- pizzachan 4y ago
  I used to get a copy of Janes Defense Weekly at work. It was always a good read when I was a young kid on the hill. They even used to put out a buyers guide for IFVs/LAVs. If you want to cut through the noise for good military analysis you usually have to drop some decent dough.
- MezzoDelCammin 4y ago
  Single place? Probably no. But You can go branch by branch. For armor, Chieftain is probably as good as it gets in English when it comes to universality (he's both a historian and an active service Lt.Col. in the US NG). For further armor sources, I'd highly recommend the YT channel of Tank Museum Bovington: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheTankMuseum https://www.youtube.com/user/TheTankMuseum The chap whose video Chieftain replies to ("Perun") is worth following in his own right for the modern take on Russian / Ukraine war. He's more of an economist / logistician, but well worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC3ehuUksTyQ7bbjGntmx3Q https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC3ehuUksTyQ7bbjGntmx3Q From Perun You'll often hear the name "Michael Kofman". He doesn't get one single place where you could find all of his stuff, but google him and go through the articles / videos he is in. He's often used as a source for quite a lot of commentary about Russian Army in the past 20 years or so. https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/ https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/ When it comes to general doctrine, it's sometimes useful to know the compositions of forces. This is a good starting point: https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleOrder https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleOrder When it comes to modern navy, Jive Turkey (now called "SubBrief") is probably a cool starting point. Mainly submarines (he's an ex US Navy 688 sonar operator), but : https://www.youtube.com/c/SubBrief https://www.youtube.com/c/SubBrief
  - ansible 4y ago
CamperBob2 4y ago
The only reason you'd use tanks or infantry in a modern war is that you don't have enough drones and missiles. Maybe you're willing to climb into a tank after what we've seen in Ukraine recently, but that's all you, pal.
- sokoloff 4y ago
  If you want to occupy territory, you've got to do that on the ground.
  - CamperBob2 4y ago
    Tanks and soldiers are used to occupy territory, but in the face of a well-equipped enemy and/or a motivated populace, they can't hold it. Not everybody likes wars of attrition. Russia is an outlier in that regard. Copying their doctrine and tactics is a bad idea, as is citing them as a successful example of how to accomplish anything. They are great at beating up on unarmed civilians, but against a modern armed force they wouldn't stand a chance... and no amount of tanks and soldiers will change that.
    - zoomablemind 4y ago
      >... They are great at beating up on unarmed civilians, but against a modern armed force they wouldn't stand a chance... ...modern armed force and which is willing and allowed to fight. It's an increasingly important factor of modern day engagements. Let's not forget the political aspects of the battlefield, as we are continuing to witness.
    - paganel 4y ago
      >, but against a modern armed force they wouldn't stand a chance. They seem to be doing quite well against the modern army of Ukraine, NATO-trained for 7-8 years now.
      - yks 4y ago
        The line of engagement barely moved in 3 months all the while Ukraine is hopelessly outgunned, Russians are doing quite well indeed /s. In reality UAF wasn't even a really modern army, just more modern than Russia, and all their "NATO" training in effect started in 2014. Where do people get the impression that Russian army is strong and capable is beyond me, they just throw people into the meat grinder and sit on top of the infinite Soviet arsenal of old equipment.
ckozlowski 4y ago
Came here to post this, so glad to see you did! I'll add a complimentary link for others' benefit from Military History Visualized: "Tanks are obsolete, apparently since 1919" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY In short, people forget about Combined Arms warfare. One cannot look at the tank, or other arms of a military without understanding how it supports and is supported by the others. When that is overlooked, misunderstandings and exaggerated conclusions are the result.
- webmaven 4y ago
  > In short, people forget about Combined Arms warfare. One cannot look at the tank, or other arms of a military without understanding how it supports and is supported by the others. When that is overlooked, misunderstandings and exaggerated conclusions are the result. The modern Combined Arms Warfare is so similar to the medieval "Infantry, Archers, and Cavalry". Infantry is still infantry. Archers are now air support. Cavalry is armour. History doesn't repeat but it rhymes. Tanks won't be obsoleted by anything currently deployed, but if you manage to squeeze an a antitank munition (like some sort of armour piercing super-RPG) into a weapon an infantryman (every infantryman) carries, that might do it.
Jistern 4y ago
Your comment is extremely misleading. Modern militaries are rapidly transforming into what was science fiction, say, 50 years ago: almost exclusively remote-controlled robots and primarily (or even exclusively) autonomous robots. If you call small, unmanned, armored vehicles "tanks" you are misleading people. In modern militaries, whether it be surface ships, submarines, airplanes, tanks, etc.... within another few decades, people almost certainly won't be inside of them. People will control them remotely and/or algorithms/artificial intelligence will control them. What we are seeing in Ukraine is Russia and NATO disposing obsolete military weapons in a disgusting farce of a war. Washington and Moscow should have divided up Ukraine like they did much of Europe in the waning days of World War II. There was no need for a single bullet to be fired, let alone mortars and missiles. Washington antagonized Moscow ceaselessly. Eventually, Moscow took the bait. It's tragedy that could have, and should have been avoided. Nonetheless, just because these days you see men in tanks fighting in Ukraine on your phone or laptop, don't think that "Tanks are still relevant in modern warfare!" They aren't. Tanks, by which I mean large vehicles with people inside of them, are obsolete in modern warfare. People who claim tanks are still viable in modern warfare are either fools, liars, or manipulative purveyors of falsehoods who enjoy twisting words by referring to small, unmanned robots as "tanks." The Economist.com is yet another legacy media property that regularly engages in obvious yellow journalism in a doomed struggle to remain profitable. Articles with headlines like, "Does the Tank Have a Future?" are clickbait. I didn't take the bait; I didn't read the article. Why should I have? A better article would have been, "Does Economist.com Have a Future?"
- jeffdn 4y ago
  This is a complete misunderstanding of warfare. Drones cannot take and hold ground. Without infantry, an external power cannot exert influence over an area. Sure, they can wantonly kill civilians, but that doesn't mean they are in charge. Until and unless autonomous drones with general artificial intelligence can be mass-produced and deployed on the scale of infantry brigades, massed infantry will be required. Even then, an EMP could disable those drones in one fell swoop. They are absolutely not disposing of obsolete weapons -- and the West has no desire to "carve up Ukraine". How did Washington antagonize Moscow? NATO is a voluntary defensive pact. The Eastern European countries, who all have a long history of being oppressed and occupied by Russian (and Soviet) governments, asked to join NATO. What good would it do for the West to start a war? What is there to gain from brinksmanship when the stakes are a strategic nuclear exchange? The idea that this war is at all something provoked by the West, or in any way defensive on Russia's part, is pure Russian propaganda. The Putin regime fears the democratization of its neighbors resulting in its own people losing confidence in its ability to lead the country. This phase of the war is merely an extension of Russia's desire to quash any semblance of Ukrainian agency -- this war started in 2014, after the last vestige of Russia's control over Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, fled the country. Finally, your view actively denies the Ukrainian people their agency. If they did not find this war worthwhile, if they did not think Ukraine as an idea was worth defending, why are they dying in their tens of thousands to defend it?
2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
I always thought that battleships were ursurped by carriers. Aircraft killed the battleships.
- Sakos 4y ago
  Aircraft aren't anything without their missiles.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    This sea change happened in WWII though.
  - dotancohen 4y ago
    Recon is very valuable. Cannons are far more effective if you know where to point them.
- themadturk 4y ago
  It's the same thing, if you think of aircraft as missiles. The point is the extension of range. Aircraft can reach out much, much further than a naval gun, and can be used to scout more effectively (many 20th century battleships had aircraft of their own for scouting/fire spotting). Even modern missile-equipped warships are less flexible in some ways than a carrier air wing, though we have yet to see warfare pitting a modern carrier battle group against anti-ship missiles.
- russellbeattie 4y ago
  And now advanced self-targeting hypersonic intercontinental ballistic missiles are going to soon usurp carriers. Just a few dozen launched from land will easily overwhelm any defense a carrier has. You know how everything in our lives is slowly becoming smart? This goes for all the weapons too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
    This made me chuckle. Not that it's impossible but that is quite hand wavey for a very tough technical challenge nobody is close to accomplishing yet. Sure. And carriers can simply launch their reusable hypersonic smart drone swarm shields and submerge underwater.
objektif 4y ago
This is like asking Michael Saylor if Bitcoin is still a good investment.
ufmace 4y ago
Yup. The key point is, a weapon system becomes obsolete when something else does its job better, not when it becomes more vulnerable. When something valuable becomes more vulnerable, you protect it better. When it becomes less valuable because something else does the job better, then you get rid of it. As of right now, nothing does a ground offensive like a few dozen tanks advancing at top speed with appropriate support. They'll blast anything in their path and charge right through all but the toughest and most concentrated defenses. As long as you can see those really concentrated defenses in advance and go around, they're pretty tough to stop.
- thereisnospork 4y ago
  > Yup. The key point is, a weapon system becomes obsolete when something else does its job better, not when it becomes more vulnerable. When something valuable becomes more vulnerable, you protect it better. When it becomes less valuable because something else does the job better, then you get rid of it. What does a vulnerable tank do that self-propelled artillery doesn't do better? Not being vulnerable to small arms is one of the key value propositions of the tank, in a modern anti-tank heavy environment* tanks are just expensive slow moving trucks w/ a big gun. *as we are seeing in Ukraine.
  - baud147258 4y ago
    > What does a vulnerable tank do that self-propelled artillery doesn't do better? Being able to directly support infantry and their IFV/APC on the frontline?
    - tlear 4y ago
      I think the claim is that SPG can also fire in direct mode and they have MUCH bigger guns. Imagine an SPG with trophy system bolted on it. Question is, is passive armour beyond stopping bullets and shrapnel worth it? I wonder if the new "tank" will be a wheeled SPG that can fire hull down and has an APS system. Or it could be something like BTR 4 with its auto cannon, being able to carry some infantry, add APS to that and you have a lethal combo. There is also a lot of overselling of infantry support. Stugna or Javelin can kill T80 from 4km away, what use is dismounted infantryman there?

kashkhan 4y ago

Maybe war shouldn't have a future and not a role. We've had enough of the european way of war.

mike-the-mikado 4y ago
Arguably the war is happening because we had prepared for it insufficiently.
- the_af 4y ago
  It's hard to understand how "we" could not have prepared sufficiently. This conflict in Europe isn't a spur of the moment thing. Arguably it could have been in the making since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, but even if you don't go that far back, then at least from 2014. It certainly didn't come out of the blue! I'll make my comment more assertive: I think "we" (for almost any value of "we") prepared for this. Some assumptions were proven wrong, like it often happens with war. But a lot of it is playing out like many assumed it would, or at least, it's playing out so that some factions can observe what modern war fought with modern weapons looks like.
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    I think EU specifically dropped it's defense and R&D budgets and became too weak, making land grabs by Russia possible. There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland.
    - foverzar 4y ago
      > There's a reason Russia feels good blustering about attacking Finland. When did that happen?
      - vorpalhex 4y ago
        https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/12/russia-threatens-retaliatory-steps-if-finland-joins-nato.html https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/12/russia-threatens-retaliatory... https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/russia-threatens-nukes-for-us-uk-finland-if-nato-expands/ https://nypost.com/2022/05/14/russia-threatens-nukes-for-us-... https://www.newsweek.com/russia-threatens-finland-sweden-nato-ukraine-invasion-1682715 https://www.newsweek.com/russia-threatens-finland-sweden-nat... This was major news and carried by almost every outlet. It is almost certainly just bluster, but escalatory bluster for sure.
  - whimsicalism 4y ago
    If war was the predictable outcome, Ukraine should probably have been more dovish towards Russian-speaking Ukrainians in the East, ie. not banning Russian language, not shelling cities. Obviously what Russia has done is reprehensible, but if Ukraine saw war as incoming I don't see why they took these aggravating steps.
    - the_af 4y ago
      Let's just say I find your comment very on point. I would like to discuss this, but I don't think this is the best venue, and also this is a very sensitive topic and people are likely to be upset. And I wouldn't blame them. I did want to say your observation is astute.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Russian language isn't banned anywhere in Ukraine. Indeed, 5 minutes of combat footage from the Ukrainian side will quickly show that the majority of their armed forces speak Russian. Even Russians themselves reflected on this, noting that most volunteer forces they have faced so far come not from the Western (majority-Ukrainian-speaking) regions of Ukraine, but rather from Kharkiv, Dnipro etc. Their explanation is that all those people are "brainwashed by Ukrainian Nazis". There is some real contention with the status of Russian as 1) the official government language, and 2) the official education language in schools. But I don't think it's fair to phrase that as "banning Russian".
      - notahacker 4y ago
        And anyway, the Ukrainian population did take those steps when most of them voted for a political outsider from a Russian speaking background seen as sympathetic to Russian speaking culture and somewhat willing to negotiate better relations with the "independent Republics". Putin interpreted that as a sign of weakness...
      - whimsicalism 4y ago
        It is illegal to have government communication in Russian or to have a Russian language radio station in Ukraine. I would call that banning Russian language from some aspects of public life.
  - cestith 4y ago
    Ukraine has, in fact, been partly occupied and claimed by a foreign power since 2014.
malwrar 4y ago
What do you propose instead? A state is always going to need a military to defend its stability and continuity from existential threats. Despite what the internet would have you believe, the world is a massive place with a vast diaspora of peoples with tons of different contradictory policy preferences. I don’t think we could give up preparing for the next fight if we wanted to.
- bnralt 4y ago
  What was the last successful offensive war? When was the last time American tanks were successful in creating a positive outcome for United States citizens (which, theoretically, is the entire reason they're built)? You could make an argument for 30 years ago, but you'd need to go back closer to 70 years for a strong case. The other poster raises a valid point that war, as it is typically been envisioned, might be far less prominent than people realize. The argument is that the tank has a task on the battlefield, but we should ask ourselves how much that battlefield matters in this day and age.
  - kashkhan 4y ago
    Right. When did the US last win a war? Even with unlimited weapons, nobody wins any more. Sure you can destroy governments like Saddam and Gaddafi, but you don't win the hearts and minds, and eventually you lose.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      So do what Russia does. Deport the unfavorable people to Siberia. Then import the willing population into Ukraine. Given the Russian "tactics" and "strategy" for its war in Ukraine, it is clearly a threat of cultural genocide. Russia aims to destroy the Ukrainian people and their history, and disperse them into Siberia where they won't be able to become a threat. --------- USA tries to "win hearts and minds" because we've convinced ourselves that we're the "good guys", and want to win under certain conditions. Without hearts and minds, we lose and we're willing to accept that. When Russia fights, they're not aiming for that at all. Its just destruction. Even against "brother Slavs", its better for Ukraine to be destroyed than for it to play nice with NATO (or so they want to believe). Under these circumstances, the only solution is to arm the Ukrainians and give them a fighting chance. Otherwise, the Ukrainians will be completely, and utterly, annihilated as a people. ---------- Russia has the will and the right strategy here in broad strokes. They fortunately, don't seem to have the right tactics or approach. So it looks like the Russians will fail. But even as they fail, they will cause hundreds-of-billions, maybe trillions of dollars worth of damages, and likely cause the largest famine event the world has ever seen. Better weapons and a better defense could have prevented the Ukrainians from losing their coastland. Better weapons could have allowed Ukraine to continue their grain exports. Better weapons and defenses could have protected Ukrainian's grain silos, which are being blown up and pillaged.
msla 4y ago
> We've had enough of the european way of war. So trying another region's way of war would be an improvement, then?
- kashkhan 4y ago
  Not many continents imposing war on europe past millennium. Europe imposed war on everyone and tried to exterminate everyone else. Do better.
  - kansface 4y ago
    Ignoring Africa, Asia and North America more recently, sure!
echelon 4y ago
There will never be peace. If there are resources held without power, someone will take them. The fact that the world is as peaceful as it is now is remarkable. It's because of MAD and the high cost of war. What we revolt at is the industrial scale of modern war. But war has been with us since prehistory. Our ancestors killed, raped, and pillaged. Far enough back in time, and they even ate one another. Look to nature. It evolved thousands of types of killing machines to harness the energy of other creatures. Lions eat wild prey alive. Hornets lay their larva inside live hosts so that they can feed. Orcas play with their food for sport. Just imagine what happens when we get AGI or BCI. It's easy to be pacifist and condemn war. And we should hope for that. But we also have to protect our sovereignty and safety, and that means maintaining an adequate defense with weapons, food, energy, and supply chain. Our comfort comes at great cost.
aetherson 4y ago
What would your current advice be for the Ukraine?
- kashkhan 4y ago
  Getting more tanks ain't it. More war also not it. Russian empire needs to be dismantled. But unlikely UKR waging war on russia will do it.
  - brokencode 4y ago
    So basically you have put no thought into this except that you don’t like war. I think most people will agree with you that war is bad. But if you get attacked, then all you can do is either give up or defend yourself. Afghanistan chose to give up to the Taliban, and now their rights are being taken away. Ukraine chose to defend themselves, and the jury is still out on whether they’ll be successful and what the cost will be. But there is no third option where you simply will war out of existence. Diplomacy works with certain enemies, and that will hopefully be the outcome in Ukraine too, but that too will come with a heavy price, such as giving up major amounts of territory.
    - kashkhan 4y ago
      Plenty of people have put thought into what to do to end war. You don't need original thoughts from me. The natural corollary of someone attacking you is not to get into an arms race. Afghanistan didn't choose Taliban. Pakistan and Saudi chose Taliban and armed them enough to take over. War obviously works. What's going to happen in UKR is that the warlike will win and then naturally turn their guns towards the locals. Exactly like in Afghanistan. You can arm them as much as you like, but they will not turn into gandhis with an excess of guns. My point is not that war doesn't work. My point is that we should all be fighting against war.
      - vel0city 4y ago
        > My point is that we should all be fighting against war. By what, asking nicely?
dageshi 4y ago
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.
- pizzachan 4y ago
  That’s what I tell people about politics.
  - I-M-S 4y ago
    OP is paraphrasing a quote by Leon Trotsky which originally refers to politics.
bombcar 4y ago
> I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. As long as there are conflicting desires, there will be conflict, and it can break out into war. However, it's possible that war can be reduced, but it may require things we're not quite ready for, such as the end of Westphalian states.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  I'm ready
skylanh 4y ago
This is sort of my reference point from a salient and personal perspective on why government's have departments of defense. TEDxAmsterdam: Peter van Uhm: Why I chose a gun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjAsM1vAhW0 Link to TED profile: https://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_van_uhm https://www.ted.com/speakers/peter_van_uhm "Peter van Uhm [was from 17 April 2008 until 28 June 2012] the Netherlands' chief of defense" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Uhm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_van_Uhm
- kashkhan 4y ago
  A government needs to wage war at some level to exist. To eliminate war the motives for war created by governments need to be addressed. There is only one logical outcome, once you decide you don't want war.
  - phillc73 4y ago
    Dispense with the government?
    - int_19h 4y ago
      Governments are fine. It's states that are the problem. Nation-states (whether ethnic or civic) especially, because they have motivations to wage war that are connected to the fiction that forms their core: "this territory is historically ours", and "you're treating our people poorly". Both are in full display in Ukraine today, but just look at any "Greater ..." article in Wikipedia to see numerous other examples.
      - Mountain_Skies 4y ago
        Unless you somehow achieve global equality in all things, there's always going to be one group that wants something another group has. Combine that with democracy and you get a government that's happy to assist them with taking it.
gorgoiler 4y ago
“War is the continuation of politics by other means.” Armed conflict is driven by foreign policy which itself is, ultimately, politics. (Unless it’s a crusade.)

echelon 4y ago

Is there a good rundown of every piece of weaponry and its corresponding utility and strategy somewhere? I'd love to update or correct my understanding of tanks, artillery, HIMARS, aircraft carriers, cruisers, littoral combat, submarine classes, F-22, F-35, AWACS, etc.

pizzachan 4y ago
I used to get a copy of Janes Defense Weekly at work. It was always a good read when I was a young kid on the hill. They even used to put out a buyers guide for IFVs/LAVs. If you want to cut through the noise for good military analysis you usually have to drop some decent dough.
MezzoDelCammin 4y ago
Single place? Probably no. But You can go branch by branch. For armor, Chieftain is probably as good as it gets in English when it comes to universality (he's both a historian and an active service Lt.Col. in the US NG). For further armor sources, I'd highly recommend the YT channel of Tank Museum Bovington: https://www.youtube.com/user/TheTankMuseum https://www.youtube.com/user/TheTankMuseum The chap whose video Chieftain replies to ("Perun") is worth following in his own right for the modern take on Russian / Ukraine war. He's more of an economist / logistician, but well worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC3ehuUksTyQ7bbjGntmx3Q https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCC3ehuUksTyQ7bbjGntmx3Q From Perun You'll often hear the name "Michael Kofman". He doesn't get one single place where you could find all of his stuff, but google him and go through the articles / videos he is in. He's often used as a source for quite a lot of commentary about Russian Army in the past 20 years or so. https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/ https://russianmilitaryanalysis.wordpress.com/ When it comes to general doctrine, it's sometimes useful to know the compositions of forces. This is a good starting point: https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleOrder https://www.youtube.com/c/BattleOrder When it comes to modern navy, Jive Turkey (now called "SubBrief") is probably a cool starting point. Mainly submarines (he's an ex US Navy 688 sonar operator), but : https://www.youtube.com/c/SubBrief https://www.youtube.com/c/SubBrief
- ansible 4y ago

CamperBob2 4y ago

The only reason you'd use tanks or infantry in a modern war is that you don't have enough drones and missiles. Maybe you're willing to climb into a tank after what we've seen in Ukraine recently, but that's all you, pal.

sokoloff 4y ago
If you want to occupy territory, you've got to do that on the ground.
- CamperBob2 4y ago
  Tanks and soldiers are used to occupy territory, but in the face of a well-equipped enemy and/or a motivated populace, they can't hold it. Not everybody likes wars of attrition. Russia is an outlier in that regard. Copying their doctrine and tactics is a bad idea, as is citing them as a successful example of how to accomplish anything. They are great at beating up on unarmed civilians, but against a modern armed force they wouldn't stand a chance... and no amount of tanks and soldiers will change that.
  - zoomablemind 4y ago
    >... They are great at beating up on unarmed civilians, but against a modern armed force they wouldn't stand a chance... ...modern armed force and which is willing and allowed to fight. It's an increasingly important factor of modern day engagements. Let's not forget the political aspects of the battlefield, as we are continuing to witness.
  - paganel 4y ago
    >, but against a modern armed force they wouldn't stand a chance. They seem to be doing quite well against the modern army of Ukraine, NATO-trained for 7-8 years now.
    - yks 4y ago
      The line of engagement barely moved in 3 months all the while Ukraine is hopelessly outgunned, Russians are doing quite well indeed /s. In reality UAF wasn't even a really modern army, just more modern than Russia, and all their "NATO" training in effect started in 2014. Where do people get the impression that Russian army is strong and capable is beyond me, they just throw people into the meat grinder and sit on top of the infinite Soviet arsenal of old equipment.

ckozlowski 4y ago

Came here to post this, so glad to see you did! I'll add a complimentary link for others' benefit from Military History Visualized: "Tanks are obsolete, apparently since 1919" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPth_xqBXGY In short, people forget about Combined Arms warfare. One cannot look at the tank, or other arms of a military without understanding how it supports and is supported by the others. When that is overlooked, misunderstandings and exaggerated conclusions are the result.

webmaven 4y ago
> In short, people forget about Combined Arms warfare. One cannot look at the tank, or other arms of a military without understanding how it supports and is supported by the others. When that is overlooked, misunderstandings and exaggerated conclusions are the result. The modern Combined Arms Warfare is so similar to the medieval "Infantry, Archers, and Cavalry". Infantry is still infantry. Archers are now air support. Cavalry is armour. History doesn't repeat but it rhymes. Tanks won't be obsoleted by anything currently deployed, but if you manage to squeeze an a antitank munition (like some sort of armour piercing super-RPG) into a weapon an infantryman (every infantryman) carries, that might do it.

Jistern 4y ago

Your comment is extremely misleading. Modern militaries are rapidly transforming into what was science fiction, say, 50 years ago: almost exclusively remote-controlled robots and primarily (or even exclusively) autonomous robots. If you call small, unmanned, armored vehicles "tanks" you are misleading people. In modern militaries, whether it be surface ships, submarines, airplanes, tanks, etc.... within another few decades, people almost certainly won't be inside of them. People will control them remotely and/or algorithms/artificial intelligence will control them. What we are seeing in Ukraine is Russia and NATO disposing obsolete military weapons in a disgusting farce of a war. Washington and Moscow should have divided up Ukraine like they did much of Europe in the waning days of World War II. There was no need for a single bullet to be fired, let alone mortars and missiles. Washington antagonized Moscow ceaselessly. Eventually, Moscow took the bait. It's tragedy that could have, and should have been avoided. Nonetheless, just because these days you see men in tanks fighting in Ukraine on your phone or laptop, don't think that "Tanks are still relevant in modern warfare!" They aren't. Tanks, by which I mean large vehicles with people inside of them, are obsolete in modern warfare. People who claim tanks are still viable in modern warfare are either fools, liars, or manipulative purveyors of falsehoods who enjoy twisting words by referring to small, unmanned robots as "tanks." The Economist.com is yet another legacy media property that regularly engages in obvious yellow journalism in a doomed struggle to remain profitable. Articles with headlines like, "Does the Tank Have a Future?" are clickbait. I didn't take the bait; I didn't read the article. Why should I have? A better article would have been, "Does Economist.com Have a Future?"

jeffdn 4y ago
This is a complete misunderstanding of warfare. Drones cannot take and hold ground. Without infantry, an external power cannot exert influence over an area. Sure, they can wantonly kill civilians, but that doesn't mean they are in charge. Until and unless autonomous drones with general artificial intelligence can be mass-produced and deployed on the scale of infantry brigades, massed infantry will be required. Even then, an EMP could disable those drones in one fell swoop. They are absolutely not disposing of obsolete weapons -- and the West has no desire to "carve up Ukraine". How did Washington antagonize Moscow? NATO is a voluntary defensive pact. The Eastern European countries, who all have a long history of being oppressed and occupied by Russian (and Soviet) governments, asked to join NATO. What good would it do for the West to start a war? What is there to gain from brinksmanship when the stakes are a strategic nuclear exchange? The idea that this war is at all something provoked by the West, or in any way defensive on Russia's part, is pure Russian propaganda. The Putin regime fears the democratization of its neighbors resulting in its own people losing confidence in its ability to lead the country. This phase of the war is merely an extension of Russia's desire to quash any semblance of Ukrainian agency -- this war started in 2014, after the last vestige of Russia's control over Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovich, fled the country. Finally, your view actively denies the Ukrainian people their agency. If they did not find this war worthwhile, if they did not think Ukraine as an idea was worth defending, why are they dying in their tens of thousands to defend it?

2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago

I always thought that battleships were ursurped by carriers. Aircraft killed the battleships.

Sakos 4y ago
Aircraft aren't anything without their missiles.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  This sea change happened in WWII though.
- dotancohen 4y ago
  Recon is very valuable. Cannons are far more effective if you know where to point them.
themadturk 4y ago
It's the same thing, if you think of aircraft as missiles. The point is the extension of range. Aircraft can reach out much, much further than a naval gun, and can be used to scout more effectively (many 20th century battleships had aircraft of their own for scouting/fire spotting). Even modern missile-equipped warships are less flexible in some ways than a carrier air wing, though we have yet to see warfare pitting a modern carrier battle group against anti-ship missiles.
russellbeattie 4y ago
And now advanced self-targeting hypersonic intercontinental ballistic missiles are going to soon usurp carriers. Just a few dozen launched from land will easily overwhelm any defense a carrier has. You know how everything in our lives is slowly becoming smart? This goes for all the weapons too. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-ship_ballistic_missile
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 4y ago
  This made me chuckle. Not that it's impossible but that is quite hand wavey for a very tough technical challenge nobody is close to accomplishing yet. Sure. And carriers can simply launch their reusable hypersonic smart drone swarm shields and submerge underwater.

objektif 4y ago

This is like asking Michael Saylor if Bitcoin is still a good investment.

ufmace 4y ago

Yup. The key point is, a weapon system becomes obsolete when something else does its job better, not when it becomes more vulnerable. When something valuable becomes more vulnerable, you protect it better. When it becomes less valuable because something else does the job better, then you get rid of it. As of right now, nothing does a ground offensive like a few dozen tanks advancing at top speed with appropriate support. They'll blast anything in their path and charge right through all but the toughest and most concentrated defenses. As long as you can see those really concentrated defenses in advance and go around, they're pretty tough to stop.

thereisnospork 4y ago
> Yup. The key point is, a weapon system becomes obsolete when something else does its job better, not when it becomes more vulnerable. When something valuable becomes more vulnerable, you protect it better. When it becomes less valuable because something else does the job better, then you get rid of it. What does a vulnerable tank do that self-propelled artillery doesn't do better? Not being vulnerable to small arms is one of the key value propositions of the tank, in a modern anti-tank heavy environment* tanks are just expensive slow moving trucks w/ a big gun. *as we are seeing in Ukraine.
- baud147258 4y ago
  > What does a vulnerable tank do that self-propelled artillery doesn't do better? Being able to directly support infantry and their IFV/APC on the frontline?
  - tlear 4y ago
    I think the claim is that SPG can also fire in direct mode and they have MUCH bigger guns. Imagine an SPG with trophy system bolted on it. Question is, is passive armour beyond stopping bullets and shrapnel worth it? I wonder if the new "tank" will be a wheeled SPG that can fire hull down and has an APS system. Or it could be something like BTR 4 with its auto cannon, being able to carry some infantry, add APS to that and you have a lethal combo. There is also a lot of overselling of infantry support. Stugna or Javelin can kill T80 from 4km away, what use is dismounted infantryman there?