5 ms·

At the highest level, war is like business, full of opportunities and risks that have to be carefully weighted. Contrary to somewhat popular belief, there are

At the highest level, war is like business, full of opportunities and risks that have to be carefully weighted. Contrary to somewhat popular belief, there are winners and losers after a war. The US partially built its supremacy thanks to the two world wars. But nuclear weapons are obviously different. I highly doubt that this kind of simulation is realistic. We're generally bad at predicting things that never happened, and this is why it is unlikely to happen, not because of the colossal death count, but because of the unpredictability.

fny 4y ago
> The US partially built its supremacy thanks to the two world wars. Two world wars that it did not initiate. The initial participants in wars more often than not sustain heavy losses. It's a suboptimal strategy to win anything.
- yosito 4y ago
  > Two world wars that it did not initiate. It hasn't initiated the current conflict either, despite Russian propaganda.
- stephc_int13 4y ago
  There is an apparent pattern in modern history where "strong hands" leaders severely underestimate their opponents and lose everything in war. There are counter examples in more ancient history. And to be clear, I am strongly anti-war.
- vladich 4y ago
  Well, when you impose economic embargo (as the US did on Japan), and you supply one of the parties (the UK) with weapons, you might not necessarily initiate the war, but you in fact actively participate in it. You can get away with that involvement if the threat is relatively minor (like in Vietnam or Afghanistan cases), but history tells us you can't avoid entering the war if what you do is an existential threat for the other party. Now try to replace Japan with Russia and UK with Ukraine and you can see where it is going. Also, in this war it's not necessary to occupy the territory, so while the US territory was safe during both world wars, it's not the case now.
bitL 4y ago
Did you ever have a bad manager or a hierarchy of bad managers before where the most inept kept getting promoted, utilizing bad metrics and estimates? What makes you think the same situation can't happen at the highest command?
- neuronic 4y ago
  Nothing but I don't believe in the Peter principle anymore after reading about its cousin, the Gervais principle. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
  - pmoriarty 4y ago
    This is a great article that really deserves an HN post of its own. Thanks for linking to it.
    - metadat 4y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33298158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33298158
  - bitL 4y ago
    Gervais implies that intelligent mass-murderers were always at the top and the only way society functions is by having a clueless buffer that shields the population from this knowledge. Not very optimistic either.
tehjoker 4y ago
there are winners for the upper class, no one wins in the lower classes

fny 4y ago

> The US partially built its supremacy thanks to the two world wars. Two world wars that it did not initiate. The initial participants in wars more often than not sustain heavy losses. It's a suboptimal strategy to win anything.

yosito 4y ago
> Two world wars that it did not initiate. It hasn't initiated the current conflict either, despite Russian propaganda.
stephc_int13 4y ago
There is an apparent pattern in modern history where "strong hands" leaders severely underestimate their opponents and lose everything in war. There are counter examples in more ancient history. And to be clear, I am strongly anti-war.
vladich 4y ago
Well, when you impose economic embargo (as the US did on Japan), and you supply one of the parties (the UK) with weapons, you might not necessarily initiate the war, but you in fact actively participate in it. You can get away with that involvement if the threat is relatively minor (like in Vietnam or Afghanistan cases), but history tells us you can't avoid entering the war if what you do is an existential threat for the other party. Now try to replace Japan with Russia and UK with Ukraine and you can see where it is going. Also, in this war it's not necessary to occupy the territory, so while the US territory was safe during both world wars, it's not the case now.

bitL 4y ago

Did you ever have a bad manager or a hierarchy of bad managers before where the most inept kept getting promoted, utilizing bad metrics and estimates? What makes you think the same situation can't happen at the highest command?

neuronic 4y ago
Nothing but I don't believe in the Peter principle anymore after reading about its cousin, the Gervais principle. https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-or-the-office-according-to-the-office/ https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2009/10/07/the-gervais-principle-...
- pmoriarty 4y ago
  This is a great article that really deserves an HN post of its own. Thanks for linking to it.
  - metadat 4y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33298158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33298158
- bitL 4y ago
  Gervais implies that intelligent mass-murderers were always at the top and the only way society functions is by having a clueless buffer that shields the population from this knowledge. Not very optimistic either.

tehjoker 4y ago

there are winners for the upper class, no one wins in the lower classes