25 ms·

I suspect your conceptualization of 'dangerous and violent' as a single axis may be the main weakness here. We've struggled with 'dangerous and violent' for a l

by Tyrek 4y ago

I suspect your conceptualization of 'dangerous and violent' as a single axis may be the main weakness here. We've struggled with 'dangerous and violent' for a long time (e.g., incorporating 'friendly' Gallic tribes in the late Roman era as a defensive buffer) - but over the long term there's been a clear transition away from the 'friendly barbarian' model towards the modern professional military? I don't have a clear conclusion here to wrap it up, but the multiple dimensions at play here intuitively reject the assumption that you have to embrace the same characteristics that you are trying to protect against.

dclowd9901 4y ago
In what case has that ever been true though? In military conflict, there are possibly varying levels of morality at play, sure, but at the end of the day, people with guns and tanks end up killing people with guns and tanks, right?
- colonCapitalDee 4y ago
  Not at all. Modern war isn't some sort of battle royal with guns and tanks, it's more of a strategy and logistics problem. If you're interested in a window into modern military thinking that's accessible to laymen like you and me, I'd recommend checking out this article: https://warontherocks.com/2023/02/the-war-will-grind-on-reflecting-on-a-year-of-war-in-ukraine/ https://warontherocks.com/2023/02/the-war-will-grind-on-refl...
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    It's a strategy and logistics problem for the generals sitting in their safe air conditioned offices. But it absolutely is about men maiming and killing one another with terrible weapons. The logistics are required to fuel the battle royale and the strategy is required to kill and maim more of the enemy more cheaply than they are maiming and killing your people.