2 ms·

It's not about being cocky. I'm not trying to play some silly "My superhero is stronger than your superhero" debate. It's about aligned incentives and raw exper

by atonse 3y ago

It's not about being cocky. I'm not trying to play some silly "My superhero is stronger than your superhero" debate. It's about aligned incentives and raw experience. While it is correct that when it comes to an actual Navy, we have numbers to prove that China is building ships way way faster, etc, to say that the US military is a paper tiger is simply not true, not in the way Russia's military was. That's simply because (at the most cynical level) our defense industrial complex being intertwined with the economy has kept cycles of reinventing things (even if for profit-motive reasons, I said cynical). Don't get me wrong, there ARE countless stories about old equipment and such (and bloat like with the F-35), but also remember that the US has been fighting various wars pretty much continuously. That means getting to test out weapons and having troops that have real battle experience. Plus a modern war would involve whole virtual theaters (cyber targeting of infrastructure, etc) than "I have more ships than you" or "I have more tanks than you" – those all have the potential to level parts of the playing field. Also the US has decades of experience building technologies like Stealth weapons (and using them in the battlefield in various wars and skirmishes) whereas China has been building these weapons largely by stealing US IP but hasn't really tested them out in real battle. Ultimately we all have to hope that our shared economic co-dependence keeps things generally in check like they have for the past few decades.

tivert 3y ago
> That's simply because (at the most cynical level) our defense industrial complex being intertwined with the economy has kept cycles of reinventing things (even if for profit-motive reasons, I said cynical). It's not like China is standing still, either. Their military technology is getting more advanced, and not being at the cutting edge means it's much easier for them to catch up. > but also remember that the US has been fighting various wars pretty much continuously. That means getting to test out weapons and having troops that have real battle experience.... > Also the US has decades of experience building technologies like Stealth weapons (and using them in the battlefield in various wars and skirmishes) whereas China has been building these weapons largely by stealing US IP but hasn't really tested them out in real battle. The US hasn't really been testing those technologies in battle either, despite all its wars. Those were fought against weak, unsophisticated adversaries like Iraq and the Taliban. Ukraine is, just now, giving it a little taste against a peer/near-peer adversary (Russia), but it's not like those lessons will be all one-way. > Plus a modern war would involve whole virtual theaters (cyber targeting of infrastructure, etc) than "I have more ships than you" or "I have more tanks than you" – those all have the potential to level parts of the playing field. My understanding is China might have better capabilities in the "virtual theaters" area in both skill and quantity. I vaguely recall hearing that Chinese hackers were dominating a lot of hacking competitions until their government withdrew them several years ago for security reasons. I think it's also quite possible that Chinese hackers maybe more willing to fight for the government than US hackers (given stereotypes). I recall reading years ago the US weapons development suffers because US scientists tend to boycott for moral reasons, forcing it to lean too heavily on engineers, while Chinese scientists have no such qualms.

by atonse 3y ago

tivert 3y ago

> That's simply because (at the most cynical level) our defense industrial complex being intertwined with the economy has kept cycles of reinventing things (even if for profit-motive reasons, I said cynical). It's not like China is standing still, either. Their military technology is getting more advanced, and not being at the cutting edge means it's much easier for them to catch up. > but also remember that the US has been fighting various wars pretty much continuously. That means getting to test out weapons and having troops that have real battle experience.... > Also the US has decades of experience building technologies like Stealth weapons (and using them in the battlefield in various wars and skirmishes) whereas China has been building these weapons largely by stealing US IP but hasn't really tested them out in real battle. The US hasn't really been testing those technologies in battle either, despite all its wars. Those were fought against weak, unsophisticated adversaries like Iraq and the Taliban. Ukraine is, just now, giving it a little taste against a peer/near-peer adversary (Russia), but it's not like those lessons will be all one-way. > Plus a modern war would involve whole virtual theaters (cyber targeting of infrastructure, etc) than "I have more ships than you" or "I have more tanks than you" – those all have the potential to level parts of the playing field. My understanding is China might have better capabilities in the "virtual theaters" area in both skill and quantity. I vaguely recall hearing that Chinese hackers were dominating a lot of hacking competitions until their government withdrew them several years ago for security reasons. I think it's also quite possible that Chinese hackers maybe more willing to fight for the government than US hackers (given stereotypes). I recall reading years ago the US weapons development suffers because US scientists tend to boycott for moral reasons, forcing it to lean too heavily on engineers, while Chinese scientists have no such qualms.