4 ms·

>Probably not better than the best stuff the military has... Military tech is always a decade ahead of civilian, that's why the US has easily won every armed c

>Probably not better than the best stuff the military has... Military tech is always a decade ahead of civilian, that's why the US has easily won every armed conflict they've entered into in the past 50 years

chatmasta 2y ago
I’m not sure this has been true since the advent of the internet. I don’t believe there’s an entire shadow sphere of academia that is decades ahead of what’s openly published. For nuclear energy, this might be true. But for nearly any other topic I’m very skeptical.
JohnMakin 2y ago
I know for a fact that swaths of critical military infrastructure sit in AWS, so I personally doubt this is true.
paganel 2y ago
> has easily won every armed conflict they've entered into in the past 50 years That's just false. Ok, maybe you don't count Vietnam, because the US "entered" there in the '60s, but Afghanistan was a sure loss and I'd say the same for Iraq (seeing how it's now in Iran's sphere of influence, which it wasn't under Saddam). Yes, they might have won some tactical battles, most probably all of them, come to think of it, but the wars themselves were lost.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- magicalhippo 2y ago
  > That's just false. Read like sarcasm to me.
  - paganel 2y ago
    I think you’re right, sorry for having missed it in that case.
beAbU 2y ago
Have they though?
talldayo 2y ago
People don't like hearing this, but military tech and civilian tech move more-or-less in lockstep. We see this in Ukraine, where both sides are using Consumer-off-the-shelf drones for violent means with minimal modification. You could argue that Ukraine's defense is an even more novel form of warfare than what the United States is comfortable dealing with. When two armies fight each other, what determines who gets power-gapped is the way each military operationalizes new technology. The United States defense sector does an excellent job of staying on top of new advancements, but when you examine the Cold War and WWII, most of America's tech is civilian-grade but implemented with world-class logistics and command/control.

chatmasta 2y ago

I’m not sure this has been true since the advent of the internet. I don’t believe there’s an entire shadow sphere of academia that is decades ahead of what’s openly published. For nuclear energy, this might be true. But for nearly any other topic I’m very skeptical.

JohnMakin 2y ago

I know for a fact that swaths of critical military infrastructure sit in AWS, so I personally doubt this is true.

paganel 2y ago

> has easily won every armed conflict they've entered into in the past 50 years That's just false. Ok, maybe you don't count Vietnam, because the US "entered" there in the '60s, but Afghanistan was a sure loss and I'd say the same for Iraq (seeing how it's now in Iran's sphere of influence, which it wasn't under Saddam). Yes, they might have won some tactical battles, most probably all of them, come to think of it, but the wars themselves were lost.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
magicalhippo 2y ago
> That's just false. Read like sarcasm to me.
- paganel 2y ago
  I think you’re right, sorry for having missed it in that case.

beAbU 2y ago

Have they though?

talldayo 2y ago

People don't like hearing this, but military tech and civilian tech move more-or-less in lockstep. We see this in Ukraine, where both sides are using Consumer-off-the-shelf drones for violent means with minimal modification. You could argue that Ukraine's defense is an even more novel form of warfare than what the United States is comfortable dealing with. When two armies fight each other, what determines who gets power-gapped is the way each military operationalizes new technology. The United States defense sector does an excellent job of staying on top of new advancements, but when you examine the Cold War and WWII, most of America's tech is civilian-grade but implemented with world-class logistics and command/control.