3 ms·

What’s the conclusion here? Basically, the last paragraph says pundits should talk to different sources, and that they should “keep the interests of the nation”

What’s the conclusion here? Basically, the last paragraph says pundits should talk to different sources, and that they should “keep the interests of the nation” in mind. He concludes by saying some vaguely ominous thing about politics not mattering if America “goes down”. So all in all, the thesis of the piece is that no one knows how or why defense contractors are spending a significant fraction of American GDP. But that’s actually ok because critics were wrong and the military projects actually worked after decades of development. So what does any of this matter?! As he says, journalists and pundits and activists yelled for years and had no effect, zero results. Patriots kept getting made, the F35 was never canceled. The public, even institutions like universities and journalism, have no information and no influence. The author thinks thats fine, the missile defenses work (maybe we’re still not totally sure), and that this is just too important a task for democratic accountability.

rokkitmensch 2y ago
The conclusion here is that American military might is definitely, definitely, definitely not on the wane, or engaged in asymmetric warfare the narrative class tricked us into believing to be backwards religious zealots with no hope of ever playing on the global stage, and that this new multipolar world is fake Russian news.
- aprilthird2021 2y ago
  It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, tbh. I don't think anyone thinks American military might is on the wane. The blog post is very clear that given the info people knew at the time, the ineffectiveness of missle defense systems was reasonable to believe in... But America's war record in the past few decades shows that might alone cannot win wars. And given that our might is high and our strategy has been a bit poor, it's not insane for people to want to spend less money and time on the former and more on the latter...
  - CRConrad 2y ago
    > It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, tbh. Frankly, it's really not that hard at all. The GP is (pretty clearly, IMO) trying to say that all those things they are on the surface on it saying are in fact not necessarily true. They do that by formulating them in an exaggerated, IMO rather clearly sarcastic, manner, to say, in effect, that "The conclusion here" is the conclusion that the reader is at least intended to come to. > I don't think anyone thinks American military might is on the wane. AFAICS, the GP does. > The blog post is very clear that given the info people knew at the time, the ineffectiveness of missle defense systems was reasonable to believe in... AFAICT, the GP thinks it still is. > But America's war record in the past few decades shows that might alone cannot win wars. The GP is probably thanking you right now, for spelling out his point for the sarcasm-impaired.
    - aprilthird2021 2y ago
      I genuinely didn't realize GP is being sarcastic. Thanks for helping me understand

rokkitmensch 2y ago

The conclusion here is that American military might is definitely, definitely, definitely not on the wane, or engaged in asymmetric warfare the narrative class tricked us into believing to be backwards religious zealots with no hope of ever playing on the global stage, and that this new multipolar world is fake Russian news.

aprilthird2021 2y ago
It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, tbh. I don't think anyone thinks American military might is on the wane. The blog post is very clear that given the info people knew at the time, the ineffectiveness of missle defense systems was reasonable to believe in... But America's war record in the past few decades shows that might alone cannot win wars. And given that our might is high and our strategy has been a bit poor, it's not insane for people to want to spend less money and time on the former and more on the latter...
- CRConrad 2y ago
  > It's hard to understand what you're trying to say, tbh. Frankly, it's really not that hard at all. The GP is (pretty clearly, IMO) trying to say that all those things they are on the surface on it saying are in fact not necessarily true. They do that by formulating them in an exaggerated, IMO rather clearly sarcastic, manner, to say, in effect, that "The conclusion here" is the conclusion that the reader is at least intended to come to. > I don't think anyone thinks American military might is on the wane. AFAICS, the GP does. > The blog post is very clear that given the info people knew at the time, the ineffectiveness of missle defense systems was reasonable to believe in... AFAICT, the GP thinks it still is. > But America's war record in the past few decades shows that might alone cannot win wars. The GP is probably thanking you right now, for spelling out his point for the sarcasm-impaired.
  - aprilthird2021 2y ago
    I genuinely didn't realize GP is being sarcastic. Thanks for helping me understand