19 ms·

A Call to Action: Lessons from Ukraine for the Future Force [pdf]

39 points by zolbrek 3y ago

Despegar 3y ago
If the US ever tries to have conscription again, it will destroy the state as it exists.
- macintux 3y ago
  I'd wager conscription would only be relevant if the state was effectively dying anyway.
  - Despegar 3y ago
    The US has no national security threats in its region. Conscription would only be about fighting a war with China, which would be a war of choice (like all US wars).
    - helloooooooo 3y ago
      It wouldn’t be a war of choice.
      - icegreentea2 3y ago
        It would be a war of choice in the sense that it's not an existential threat. You can relatively easily conceive of scenarios where the US either needs to directly confront China, or lose its geo-strategic preeminence, but it much much harder to conceive of scenarios over the next 50 years in which direct confrontation with China is 'actually existential' (in the sense that if the US loss or did not partake in the confrontation, that the US would domestically cease to exist in a recognizable form). Effectively, the US' challenge for recruitment (and honestly a lot of things) is to convince enough of its population that US hegemony/preeminence is "a good thing" and worth fighting and dying for. Too bad the US pissed away a good chunk of that capital with GWOT.
- steve76 3y ago
  [dead]
- hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
  Why would they? There is no any reason to do that. It's the opposite of the situation in Russia where Putin is afraid to lose face so he is ready to send the next hundred thousands of cannon fodder.
- EliRivers 3y ago
  Well sure. The state as it exists will cease to be, and there will be a new state that's a lot like the old one but with conscription. You can say the same about every change to the state. Are you positing that the replacement state will be better, or worse, or is this just an observation that changing something makes it different?
  - Despegar 3y ago
    I was being charitable. It will be vastly worse for the US. And in the event of a war with China it could very plausibly be the end of the US as a unified state. There will certainly be plenty of political violence.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- monocasa 3y ago
  I would have thought that in the 90s but the fervor around 9/11 made me think that such popular consideration is fickle in both directions. If we were fighting an actual, military threat to the country, conscription would have almost certainly happened.
  - Analemma_ 3y ago
    I'm not actually sure another 9/11 would have the same unifying effect it did in 2001. Today the information ecosystem is so much more fractured, there's way more material and reputational reward for being a "counter-consensus" voice, and polarization has increased to the point where it has totally undermined even the potential of national unity -- hop on Twitter and you can easily find tons of partisans declaring that they'd rather live under Chinese communist or Russian anti-liberal "trad" rule today, if that were an option. My guess would be that if something like 9/11 happened again today, you'd see [tribe controlling the White House] try to use it as a unifying event, and this would immediately catalyze a furious reaction and counter-narrative from [tribe not controlling the White House] denouncing it as cynical grift, especially if it was used to try and justify a draft.
- Footnote7341 3y ago
  I agree with you that the US does not have the political legitimacy for conscription right now, and its surprising that they did for WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. None of those conflicts were existential for the US, they were all power plays of some kind.
  - shepherdjerred 3y ago
    How in the world was WW2 a power play for the US?
    - palmfacehn 3y ago
      To be concise, power shifted to the US. The colonial era ended or was slated to end. Former colonies were liberated and became client states of the US. The US retained an industrial base, Europe did not. The Bretton Woods agreement was signed. The Marshall plan was enacted. The Euro-Dollar system followed. As the sole remaining industrial power the US was able to dictate terms to the rest of the world. The topic goes quite deep. I'm sure better minds have written books arguing the specifics.
      - Analemma_ 3y ago
        That's a very different claim from what was said originally though. It's true that World War II resulted in the US being much more powerful, but the evidence that this was the intention all along in joining the war is very shaky. Both among national elites, and even moreso among the general public, opinion was pretty strongly isolationist and against getting involved in World War II until Pearl Harbor happened. There's not really any reason to believe that there was a master plan to make the US the global superpower by entering the war, it just kind of happened.
        shepherdjerred 3y ago
        That's my understanding as well. We _may_ have entered the war if Pearl Harbor had never happened. If the Japanese had not attacked, the United States certainly would've entered the war later, but I don't think you could ever refer to it as a "power play".
- analognoise 3y ago
  This is absolutely true - in the current information environment. Slowly boil the frog by removing internet freedom for 50 years, and close down independent media outlets, prevent growth of organic networks? Sure. There's no guarantee that our freedoms continue unabated. Look at Jan 6th and how dangerously close we came to authoritarians seizing power. There was a false elector scheme! Or a "backdoor" where as soon as the authoritarians grab power, they flip a switch and the only networks you have are ham radio enthusiasts. Not good.
jncfhnb 3y ago
There’s a good point to be made that Russia could probably beat the US in conflicts that are not existential. Simply because if Russia loses men at a rate of 50:1, the US could still find those losses unpalatable enough to concede whatever context the fight is over. Even if the US would obviously win eventually. Especially if Russia or whoever was running successful disinformation campaigns. But also… we are so close to another inflection point which is fully autonomous drones that can navigate by computer vision to pre determined or opportunistically chosen targets without dependence on things that make them vulnerable like GPS and remote control. Drones are a big deal but these drones would have basically no counter Frankly I’m confused why we don’t have these things for big static targets like a drone that independently navigates to a rail line, drops a mine and leaves for the train to blow up next time it shows up.
- openasocket 3y ago
  > Simply because if Russia loses men at a rate of 50:1, the US could still find those losses unpalatable enough to concede whatever context the fight is over. I’m certainly tempted by this line of thinking. However, it’s important to bear in mind that the Japanese thought the exact same thing during WW2 when they initiated Pearl Harbor. It’s very difficult to predict how the public will react to war.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    Perhaps. I think the context is different though. A series of stupid wars has greatly lowered Americans trust in the military.
    - pstuart 3y ago
      They seem to do great on the shock and awe, not so much on the occupation part.
    - monocasa 3y ago
      The populace in the 90s was pretty well primed with the remnants of anti-vietnam, anti-war messaging. 9/11 changed things very quick.
treprinum 3y ago
I am wondering how did they come up with 3,600 casualties per day - that would be 1.3M per year.
- monocasa 3y ago
  That number might make sense if you include injuries significant enough to (at least temporarily) remove that person from the theater of war. Soldiers in hospital or discharged because of injuries are very nearly equivalent to dead soldiers when it comes to removing enough people in play who can pull a trigger pointed at your soldiers.
  - verteu 3y ago
    Correct -- a "casualty, as a term in military usage, is a person in military service, combatant or non-combatant, who becomes unavailable for duty due to any of several circumstances, including death, injury, illness, capture or desertion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_(person) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_(person)
sylware 3y ago
lessons from Ukraine... "don't give back your nukes"
- runarberg 3y ago
  You are taking the wrong lesson. Russia has countless times used the threat of nuclear escalation to its advantage. Many western governments (and zealots like Musk) are very hesitant in giving aid to the Ukrainian defense effort citing nuclear escalation. Now imagine a world where Russia didn’t have nukes, that we successfully got rid of those horrible weapons in the 1980s to 1990s (which was very possible if the American government would have been willing), how far do you think Russia would go then without being shielded by this threat? At the very least western nations wouldn’t have their favorite excuse for why they don’t send their so many weapons and so many armies to actually defend a nation under an invasion.
  - logicchains 3y ago
    > that we successfully got rid of those horrible weapons in the 1980s to 1990s (which was very possible if the American government would have been willing This is just wishful thinking. All countries agreeing to give up their nukes is about as likely as all countries agreeing never to go to war again because it's a net negative; not going to happen.
    - runarberg 3y ago
      My parent is also wishful thinking. There is no timeline where Ukraine keeps their nukes and the world is just OK with it. Ukraine would need to be far more authoritarian and non-EU oriented if it wanted to keep their nukes. It would basically need to be more like Belarus. And at that point there is no world where they want to break away from Russian influence and enter the EU influence.
  - sylware 3y ago
    If Ukraine had nukes, Putin's regime would have stayed put.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

39 points by zolbrek 3y ago

Despegar 3y ago

If the US ever tries to have conscription again, it will destroy the state as it exists.

macintux 3y ago
I'd wager conscription would only be relevant if the state was effectively dying anyway.
- Despegar 3y ago
  The US has no national security threats in its region. Conscription would only be about fighting a war with China, which would be a war of choice (like all US wars).
  - helloooooooo 3y ago
    It wouldn’t be a war of choice.
    - icegreentea2 3y ago
      It would be a war of choice in the sense that it's not an existential threat. You can relatively easily conceive of scenarios where the US either needs to directly confront China, or lose its geo-strategic preeminence, but it much much harder to conceive of scenarios over the next 50 years in which direct confrontation with China is 'actually existential' (in the sense that if the US loss or did not partake in the confrontation, that the US would domestically cease to exist in a recognizable form). Effectively, the US' challenge for recruitment (and honestly a lot of things) is to convince enough of its population that US hegemony/preeminence is "a good thing" and worth fighting and dying for. Too bad the US pissed away a good chunk of that capital with GWOT.
steve76 3y ago
[dead]
hdjjhhvvhga 3y ago
Why would they? There is no any reason to do that. It's the opposite of the situation in Russia where Putin is afraid to lose face so he is ready to send the next hundred thousands of cannon fodder.
EliRivers 3y ago
Well sure. The state as it exists will cease to be, and there will be a new state that's a lot like the old one but with conscription. You can say the same about every change to the state. Are you positing that the replacement state will be better, or worse, or is this just an observation that changing something makes it different?
- Despegar 3y ago
  I was being charitable. It will be vastly worse for the US. And in the event of a war with China it could very plausibly be the end of the US as a unified state. There will certainly be plenty of political violence.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
monocasa 3y ago
I would have thought that in the 90s but the fervor around 9/11 made me think that such popular consideration is fickle in both directions. If we were fighting an actual, military threat to the country, conscription would have almost certainly happened.
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  I'm not actually sure another 9/11 would have the same unifying effect it did in 2001. Today the information ecosystem is so much more fractured, there's way more material and reputational reward for being a "counter-consensus" voice, and polarization has increased to the point where it has totally undermined even the potential of national unity -- hop on Twitter and you can easily find tons of partisans declaring that they'd rather live under Chinese communist or Russian anti-liberal "trad" rule today, if that were an option. My guess would be that if something like 9/11 happened again today, you'd see [tribe controlling the White House] try to use it as a unifying event, and this would immediately catalyze a furious reaction and counter-narrative from [tribe not controlling the White House] denouncing it as cynical grift, especially if it was used to try and justify a draft.
Footnote7341 3y ago
I agree with you that the US does not have the political legitimacy for conscription right now, and its surprising that they did for WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. None of those conflicts were existential for the US, they were all power plays of some kind.
- shepherdjerred 3y ago
  How in the world was WW2 a power play for the US?
  - palmfacehn 3y ago
    To be concise, power shifted to the US. The colonial era ended or was slated to end. Former colonies were liberated and became client states of the US. The US retained an industrial base, Europe did not. The Bretton Woods agreement was signed. The Marshall plan was enacted. The Euro-Dollar system followed. As the sole remaining industrial power the US was able to dictate terms to the rest of the world. The topic goes quite deep. I'm sure better minds have written books arguing the specifics.
    - Analemma_ 3y ago
      That's a very different claim from what was said originally though. It's true that World War II resulted in the US being much more powerful, but the evidence that this was the intention all along in joining the war is very shaky. Both among national elites, and even moreso among the general public, opinion was pretty strongly isolationist and against getting involved in World War II until Pearl Harbor happened. There's not really any reason to believe that there was a master plan to make the US the global superpower by entering the war, it just kind of happened.
      - shepherdjerred 3y ago
        That's my understanding as well. We _may_ have entered the war if Pearl Harbor had never happened. If the Japanese had not attacked, the United States certainly would've entered the war later, but I don't think you could ever refer to it as a "power play".
analognoise 3y ago
This is absolutely true - in the current information environment. Slowly boil the frog by removing internet freedom for 50 years, and close down independent media outlets, prevent growth of organic networks? Sure. There's no guarantee that our freedoms continue unabated. Look at Jan 6th and how dangerously close we came to authoritarians seizing power. There was a false elector scheme! Or a "backdoor" where as soon as the authoritarians grab power, they flip a switch and the only networks you have are ham radio enthusiasts. Not good.

jncfhnb 3y ago

There’s a good point to be made that Russia could probably beat the US in conflicts that are not existential. Simply because if Russia loses men at a rate of 50:1, the US could still find those losses unpalatable enough to concede whatever context the fight is over. Even if the US would obviously win eventually. Especially if Russia or whoever was running successful disinformation campaigns. But also… we are so close to another inflection point which is fully autonomous drones that can navigate by computer vision to pre determined or opportunistically chosen targets without dependence on things that make them vulnerable like GPS and remote control. Drones are a big deal but these drones would have basically no counter Frankly I’m confused why we don’t have these things for big static targets like a drone that independently navigates to a rail line, drops a mine and leaves for the train to blow up next time it shows up.

openasocket 3y ago
> Simply because if Russia loses men at a rate of 50:1, the US could still find those losses unpalatable enough to concede whatever context the fight is over. I’m certainly tempted by this line of thinking. However, it’s important to bear in mind that the Japanese thought the exact same thing during WW2 when they initiated Pearl Harbor. It’s very difficult to predict how the public will react to war.
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Perhaps. I think the context is different though. A series of stupid wars has greatly lowered Americans trust in the military.
  - pstuart 3y ago
    They seem to do great on the shock and awe, not so much on the occupation part.
  - monocasa 3y ago
    The populace in the 90s was pretty well primed with the remnants of anti-vietnam, anti-war messaging. 9/11 changed things very quick.

treprinum 3y ago

I am wondering how did they come up with 3,600 casualties per day - that would be 1.3M per year.

monocasa 3y ago
That number might make sense if you include injuries significant enough to (at least temporarily) remove that person from the theater of war. Soldiers in hospital or discharged because of injuries are very nearly equivalent to dead soldiers when it comes to removing enough people in play who can pull a trigger pointed at your soldiers.
- verteu 3y ago
  Correct -- a "casualty, as a term in military usage, is a person in military service, combatant or non-combatant, who becomes unavailable for duty due to any of several circumstances, including death, injury, illness, capture or desertion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_(person) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualty_(person)

sylware 3y ago

lessons from Ukraine... "don't give back your nukes"

runarberg 3y ago
You are taking the wrong lesson. Russia has countless times used the threat of nuclear escalation to its advantage. Many western governments (and zealots like Musk) are very hesitant in giving aid to the Ukrainian defense effort citing nuclear escalation. Now imagine a world where Russia didn’t have nukes, that we successfully got rid of those horrible weapons in the 1980s to 1990s (which was very possible if the American government would have been willing), how far do you think Russia would go then without being shielded by this threat? At the very least western nations wouldn’t have their favorite excuse for why they don’t send their so many weapons and so many armies to actually defend a nation under an invasion.
- logicchains 3y ago
  > that we successfully got rid of those horrible weapons in the 1980s to 1990s (which was very possible if the American government would have been willing This is just wishful thinking. All countries agreeing to give up their nukes is about as likely as all countries agreeing never to go to war again because it's a net negative; not going to happen.
  - runarberg 3y ago
    My parent is also wishful thinking. There is no timeline where Ukraine keeps their nukes and the world is just OK with it. Ukraine would need to be far more authoritarian and non-EU oriented if it wanted to keep their nukes. It would basically need to be more like Belarus. And at that point there is no world where they want to break away from Russian influence and enter the EU influence.
- sylware 3y ago
  If Ukraine had nukes, Putin's regime would have stayed put.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]