3 ms·

Such is the nature of any sort of reformer and institution. You wouldn't be a "reformer" unless you thought the institution needs to be "reformed". That sets

Such is the nature of any sort of reformer and institution. You wouldn't be a "reformer" unless you thought the institution needs to be "reformed". That sets you up in opposition to everyone inside the institution, who are presumably inside the institution because they believe in the goals, processes, and structures of the institution.

afterburner 4y ago
Having watched Russia completely fail to execute complex air combat operations in Ukraine of the sort we take completely for granted from the US, I think maybe you are underestimating US air combat performance? EDIT: Hmm I guess you edited out the part about saying the US has been losing for 60 years.
- nostrademons 4y ago
  Yeah, I edited it out because I knew discussion would rathole on whether or not the U.S. military is effective, while the larger point I'm making is about institutions (in general) and their ability to change. Russia's performance in the Ukraine war is a good example: they have all the war materials [1], but they suck at waging war because the institutions are so corrupt that they suck at waging war [2]. [1] https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/03/world/infographic-ukraine-russia-military/ https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/03/world/infographic-uk... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9i47sgi-V4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9i47sgi-V4
onepointsixC 4y ago
The problem is that the "reformers" were trying to go back to the previous paradigm. They thought that putting in expensive electronics and radar into the F-16 was a waste and that instead it should rely on guns. They loathed the M-1 Abrams and instead called for a return to the M60's for which they could buy 3 for every one. They advocated for effectively a return to WW2 style of things, generally having a distaste for technological developments which have since arrived. The Gulf War with America's high tech superiority completely and utterly refuted their core thesis and they're basically considered jokes who in their late years would show up on Russia Today to spout the same nonsense they previously had against now battle proven systems but this time about the F-35.
thereddaikon 4y ago
The reformers actually weren't about reform at all really. They didn't have new, innovative ideas that were shunned for being dangerous. They were and are luddites who thought warfare hadn't moved on from the 1950's and investing in new technology and capabilities was a waste of time. They claimed the M1 Abrams was less effective than previous tanks such as the M48 Patton. They though radar and guided missiles were useless to put on a plane and that the ideal fighter had more in common with the F-86 than the F-15. While at the same time claiming credit for designing the F-15 when they didn't have a thing to do with it.

afterburner 4y ago

Having watched Russia completely fail to execute complex air combat operations in Ukraine of the sort we take completely for granted from the US, I think maybe you are underestimating US air combat performance? EDIT: Hmm I guess you edited out the part about saying the US has been losing for 60 years.

nostrademons 4y ago
Yeah, I edited it out because I knew discussion would rathole on whether or not the U.S. military is effective, while the larger point I'm making is about institutions (in general) and their ability to change. Russia's performance in the Ukraine war is a good example: they have all the war materials [1], but they suck at waging war because the institutions are so corrupt that they suck at waging war [2]. [1] https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/03/world/infographic-ukraine-russia-military/ https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/03/world/infographic-uk... [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9i47sgi-V4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9i47sgi-V4

onepointsixC 4y ago

The problem is that the "reformers" were trying to go back to the previous paradigm. They thought that putting in expensive electronics and radar into the F-16 was a waste and that instead it should rely on guns. They loathed the M-1 Abrams and instead called for a return to the M60's for which they could buy 3 for every one. They advocated for effectively a return to WW2 style of things, generally having a distaste for technological developments which have since arrived. The Gulf War with America's high tech superiority completely and utterly refuted their core thesis and they're basically considered jokes who in their late years would show up on Russia Today to spout the same nonsense they previously had against now battle proven systems but this time about the F-35.

thereddaikon 4y ago

The reformers actually weren't about reform at all really. They didn't have new, innovative ideas that were shunned for being dangerous. They were and are luddites who thought warfare hadn't moved on from the 1950's and investing in new technology and capabilities was a waste of time. They claimed the M1 Abrams was less effective than previous tanks such as the M48 Patton. They though radar and guided missiles were useless to put on a plane and that the ideal fighter had more in common with the F-86 than the F-15. While at the same time claiming credit for designing the F-15 when they didn't have a thing to do with it.