4 ms·
The ability to improvise or produce locally (and in limited quantities) is not as poor as often made out (in particular because you throw away the rule book).
by RandomLensman 3y ago
The ability to improvise or produce locally (and in limited quantities) is not as poor as often made out (in particular because you throw away the rule book).
Doesn't mean some specific things would not be difficult to get.
Also, even in wars with heavy and broad destruction there wasn't a collapse of civilization.
- warner25 3y ago> even in wars with heavy and broad destruction there wasn't a collapse of civilization This is something that has puzzled me before. Like when I'm reading about the destruction in Ukraine, the active targeting of their electrical grid by Russian airstrikes, in juxtaposition with stories and photos in which it seems that day-to-day life for much of Ukraine is much closer to "normal" than "collapse of civilization." To be clear, I don't mean to downplay what has happened there, or suggest that everything is fine. I'm just surprised by the apparent robustness of the infrastructure, civilization, etc.
- RandomLensman 3y agoWhat benefit would there be for people to create chaos and collapse in such situations?
- warner25 3y agoI mean, even if the Russians aren't aiming for that, many people make it sound like modern electrical grids and supply chains in developed nations are always teetering on the edge of collapse, so it shouldn't take much to push them over that edge.
- RandomLensman 3y agoWhat incentive do those people have to say that? Are they selling books or movies? Do they want money for investment? Is their job to see dangers? Doesn't mean they are completely wrong or have bad motives either: some problems are avoided because they are pointed out. Also, there is a difference between having grids run 24x7 with no interruptions and war time with interruptions.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoIt's a war, that is the driver? Is that the question? Why in a war would you want to hurt the opponent? Collapsing the opponents power grid is a way to reduce the opponents ability to respond, to subdue them. Then once subdued and occupied, then re-build it. I think you would find there is always a balancing act in 'how much to destroy' in order to win, and also limit 'how hard will it be to rebuild once we've won'. But collapse is always part of it, because you are trying to win by hurting the other country.
- RandomLensman 3y agoNo, misunderstanding: why would you create additional chaos when you are attacked?
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoah. Ok. Maybe to sway opinion, if you can lay the blame on the other side and gain sympathy. or when retreating. But this seems pretty drastic in modern war. Not like you are burning wood forts behind you as you retreat.
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoYes, there is a sliding scale of complexity and capital costs on products that could be rapidly switched to local production. -> Hence the move to bring semi-conductors back to home soil. Because if there was a collapse of some kind, these would be very difficult to ramp up from scratch during a crisis. So you have to have some infrastructure already in place, some minimum.