3 ms·

Everyone is just gonna stop trying to acquire influence for some reason...? Or do you just think that, for some reason, this would now magically balance itself

by kulahan 1mo ago

Everyone is just gonna stop trying to acquire influence for some reason...? Or do you just think that, for some reason, this would now magically balance itself out any time any world leader thinks "wow that's a huge vacuum that needs filling!"

somenameforme 1mo ago
Empires expand when the benefit exceeds the cost. The US is currently doing quite poorly against Iran. The US military is not incompetent, nor is the Iranian army supercompetent, so why? It's technology. The traditional way the US invaded countries was by assassinating the leadership, gaining air superiority, and then basically playing shoot fish in a barrel. Iran, and likely all major US adversaries now, were/are fully prepared for the US assassinations. And gaining full air superiority is no longer possible in the era of drones, because you're no longer shooting down a small number of high value targets (like planes), but instead a practically infinite amount of low value targets that can be readily replenished. Spending interceptors that cost millions of dollars to shoot down drones that cost thousands of dollars just doesn't work. We might be able to obtain air superiority in terms of e.g. Iran being unable to fly fighter jets over their own country, but that says nothing about their ability to launch endless drones and otherwise inflict a severe toll on any invading army. So it's likely that modern war has mostly gone back to times long since past where the bottleneck is no longer cost in $$, but cost in lives. And that makes militarism far less attractive for every single country, even moreso in the era of plummeting fertility rates when the people who are going to be killed are precisely those who are supposed to be birthing and raising your next generation. So there will certainly be wars when nations see the benefit as being especially high, but I think the idea of trying to casually 'project strength' half way around the globe is probably already dead. The cost is too high, and the benefit too low.
- kulahan 1mo ago
  This entire statement relies on the idea that world leaders are highly rational actors, which they absolutely are not.
  - somenameforme 1mo ago
    It does not, because it imposes extrinsic constraints on what is possible. Iran is imposing a severe cost on the US. It doesn't matter what the US wants to do. When such a relatively minor power is able to extract such a high price, it limits what we can do. Ukraine was probably a big mistake, because it's the first time in modern history that the US got involved in a relatively large scale conflict against a peer level power. That severely damaged the perception of Western weaponry, training, and technology as being superhuman in capability. The US was obviously banking on Iran not counter-attacking out of fear, and that might have indeed been the outcome prior to Ukraine. What little rational justification for Iran there was, probably rested in some part on trying to undo the perceptual damage to the US military tech by scoring a quick victory over a minor power. But the catastrophe that has unfolded there has essentially nailed the coffin shut on any concept of military superiority, let alone dominance. This doesn't mean that the US will just completely surrender Taiwan or whatever, but rather that it's clear to every single world power that such claims of protection are now just empty rhetoric. And that's almost certainly going to be acknowledged frankly between nations in private discussions going forward.
    - kulahan 1mo ago
      Those intrinsic costs are still muddled within digital payment systems which represent nothing tangible. You can take loans out from world banks, you can run your country into slavery, or you can do a million other things you want which are irrational but still overcome these nonexistent constraints. Do you think the US is printing out a dollar for every single bill they pay? Do you not understand that the US is currently trillions of dollars in debt? Do you not see how constraints are, at best, suggestions enforced only when the majority agrees something is not worth profiting off of? What do you mean it doesn't matter what the US wants to do? The US doesn't want to go into another war. One man at the top forcing his army against their will and advice to do something is simply obedience, not a sign of what a country wants anyways. Nobody wants this in the US, and it's why even traditionally extremely neutral outlets like Reuters and AP News are willing to state that Trump is currently deeply unpopular with Republicans. Pay attention, and let go of your strawmen, I beg of you.

by kulahan 1mo ago

somenameforme 1mo ago

Empires expand when the benefit exceeds the cost. The US is currently doing quite poorly against Iran. The US military is not incompetent, nor is the Iranian army supercompetent, so why? It's technology. The traditional way the US invaded countries was by assassinating the leadership, gaining air superiority, and then basically playing shoot fish in a barrel. Iran, and likely all major US adversaries now, were/are fully prepared for the US assassinations. And gaining full air superiority is no longer possible in the era of drones, because you're no longer shooting down a small number of high value targets (like planes), but instead a practically infinite amount of low value targets that can be readily replenished. Spending interceptors that cost millions of dollars to shoot down drones that cost thousands of dollars just doesn't work. We might be able to obtain air superiority in terms of e.g. Iran being unable to fly fighter jets over their own country, but that says nothing about their ability to launch endless drones and otherwise inflict a severe toll on any invading army. So it's likely that modern war has mostly gone back to times long since past where the bottleneck is no longer cost in $$, but cost in lives. And that makes militarism far less attractive for every single country, even moreso in the era of plummeting fertility rates when the people who are going to be killed are precisely those who are supposed to be birthing and raising your next generation. So there will certainly be wars when nations see the benefit as being especially high, but I think the idea of trying to casually 'project strength' half way around the globe is probably already dead. The cost is too high, and the benefit too low.

kulahan 1mo ago
This entire statement relies on the idea that world leaders are highly rational actors, which they absolutely are not.
- somenameforme 1mo ago
  It does not, because it imposes extrinsic constraints on what is possible. Iran is imposing a severe cost on the US. It doesn't matter what the US wants to do. When such a relatively minor power is able to extract such a high price, it limits what we can do. Ukraine was probably a big mistake, because it's the first time in modern history that the US got involved in a relatively large scale conflict against a peer level power. That severely damaged the perception of Western weaponry, training, and technology as being superhuman in capability. The US was obviously banking on Iran not counter-attacking out of fear, and that might have indeed been the outcome prior to Ukraine. What little rational justification for Iran there was, probably rested in some part on trying to undo the perceptual damage to the US military tech by scoring a quick victory over a minor power. But the catastrophe that has unfolded there has essentially nailed the coffin shut on any concept of military superiority, let alone dominance. This doesn't mean that the US will just completely surrender Taiwan or whatever, but rather that it's clear to every single world power that such claims of protection are now just empty rhetoric. And that's almost certainly going to be acknowledged frankly between nations in private discussions going forward.
  - kulahan 1mo ago
    Those intrinsic costs are still muddled within digital payment systems which represent nothing tangible. You can take loans out from world banks, you can run your country into slavery, or you can do a million other things you want which are irrational but still overcome these nonexistent constraints. Do you think the US is printing out a dollar for every single bill they pay? Do you not understand that the US is currently trillions of dollars in debt? Do you not see how constraints are, at best, suggestions enforced only when the majority agrees something is not worth profiting off of? What do you mean it doesn't matter what the US wants to do? The US doesn't want to go into another war. One man at the top forcing his army against their will and advice to do something is simply obedience, not a sign of what a country wants anyways. Nobody wants this in the US, and it's why even traditionally extremely neutral outlets like Reuters and AP News are willing to state that Trump is currently deeply unpopular with Republicans. Pay attention, and let go of your strawmen, I beg of you.