4 ms·

I see your point, but I'm not sure we want to take availability of cannon fodder to be our metric for human thriving.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> I'm not sure we want to take availability of cannon fodder to be our metric for human thriving It's a measure of security. If you know your enemy cannot sustain a war of attrition, it incentivises launching one against them.
- zeroonetwothree 2y ago
  Typically logistics matters far more for a war of attrition and the US is still one of the best at that. Moreover what are we even talking about—an offensive war against the US? Our geographical position makes that unrealistic.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > logistics matters far more for a war of attrition and the US is still one of the best at that Logistics matter far more in any war. In a war of attrition, however, production (not stocks) determine the outcome. (Soldiers are produced out of the civilian population.) The reason OP's argument isn't urgent is there is no proximate war of attritition in which the stock America is running down are its soldiers. As a rich democracy, we're somewhat uniquely sensitive to troop losses. It's why we invest so heavily in technology to compensate. > an offensive war against the US? Our geographical position makes that unrealistic Those buffers of course. After which we don't have buffers. I'm not predicting imminent invasion of the homeland. Like, if we lose our security positions in Europe and the West Pacific we're back where we were in the inter-War period.
    - ForHackernews 2y ago
      > after which we don't have buffers The "buffers" are two massive oceans, those are not going anywhere for the next million years. Russia can't sustain an invasion of its next door neighbor. There is zero chance of a hostile invasion of the mainland United States.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > "buffers" are two massive oceans, those are not going anywhere for the next million years There are also nukes. Nobody is invading America any time soon. But losing that security space means conceding a massive chunk of our GDP and, with it, autonomy and quality of life. At the very least, the system of government that oversaw that failure would be replaced.
toss1 2y ago
Paradox as old as recorded time: Being ready for war prevents war : Being unready for war invites it. It's really simple: If you are leading an expansionist state, who are you going to attack first? The neighboring village/fiefdom/nation that trains like Sparta and is clearly ready to kick your military's asses back to your farthest border, or the other one whose population is mostly too fat to run down the street and spends their time chasing the latest TV show and fashion trend?
- lostmsu 2y ago
  This made me think if it would make sense to send SUV owners to battle in their SUVs. Might actually increase survival rates.
  - toss1 2y ago
    good thought, depends on the battlefield environment?
    - lostmsu 2y ago
      Most certainly. Another thought further down the line is to get some self-driving equipment installed, and use the cars before sending actual people. I feel like a relatively cheap kit could turn one into a ram and/or remote surveillance point.
      - dgfitz 2y ago
        Installing a drive-by-wire kit on a car sure isn’t hard. Self-driving would be a bit trickier, need a sensor suite and some OSS like ROS2 or the like.

> I'm not sure we want to take availability of cannon fodder to be our metric for human thriving It's a measure of security. If you know your enemy cannot sustain a war of attrition, it incentivises launching one against them.

zeroonetwothree 2y ago
Typically logistics matters far more for a war of attrition and the US is still one of the best at that. Moreover what are we even talking about—an offensive war against the US? Our geographical position makes that unrealistic.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > logistics matters far more for a war of attrition and the US is still one of the best at that Logistics matter far more in any war. In a war of attrition, however, production (not stocks) determine the outcome. (Soldiers are produced out of the civilian population.) The reason OP's argument isn't urgent is there is no proximate war of attritition in which the stock America is running down are its soldiers. As a rich democracy, we're somewhat uniquely sensitive to troop losses. It's why we invest so heavily in technology to compensate. > an offensive war against the US? Our geographical position makes that unrealistic Those buffers of course. After which we don't have buffers. I'm not predicting imminent invasion of the homeland. Like, if we lose our security positions in Europe and the West Pacific we're back where we were in the inter-War period.
  - ForHackernews 2y ago
    > after which we don't have buffers The "buffers" are two massive oceans, those are not going anywhere for the next million years. Russia can't sustain an invasion of its next door neighbor. There is zero chance of a hostile invasion of the mainland United States.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > "buffers" are two massive oceans, those are not going anywhere for the next million years There are also nukes. Nobody is invading America any time soon. But losing that security space means conceding a massive chunk of our GDP and, with it, autonomy and quality of life. At the very least, the system of government that oversaw that failure would be replaced.

toss1 2y ago

Paradox as old as recorded time: Being ready for war prevents war : Being unready for war invites it. It's really simple: If you are leading an expansionist state, who are you going to attack first? The neighboring village/fiefdom/nation that trains like Sparta and is clearly ready to kick your military's asses back to your farthest border, or the other one whose population is mostly too fat to run down the street and spends their time chasing the latest TV show and fashion trend?

lostmsu 2y ago
This made me think if it would make sense to send SUV owners to battle in their SUVs. Might actually increase survival rates.
- toss1 2y ago
  good thought, depends on the battlefield environment?
  - lostmsu 2y ago
    Most certainly. Another thought further down the line is to get some self-driving equipment installed, and use the cars before sending actual people. I feel like a relatively cheap kit could turn one into a ram and/or remote surveillance point.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      Installing a drive-by-wire kit on a car sure isn’t hard. Self-driving would be a bit trickier, need a sensor suite and some OSS like ROS2 or the like.