The US will lose WW3

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > The US will lose WW3

«‹›605 »

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

That they think they could do this without a revolution is probably what would trigger one.

# ? Mar 17, 2023 18:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 02:32

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Frosted Flake posted:

That they think they could do this without a revolution is probably what would trigger one.

Nah, you just got to whip those conscripts harder like the Tsar.

# ? Mar 17, 2023 18:38

Dawncloack: Nov 26, 2007; ECKS DEE!; Nap Ghost

Come for the dysfunctional planes and debt-ridden soldiers,stay for the socio-philosophical essays and the history lessons. Man I love this thread.

# ? Mar 17, 2023 18:40

cat botherer: Jan 6, 2022; I am interested in most phases of data processing.

Frosted Flake posted:

That they think they could do this without a revolution is probably what would trigger one.

𝐀𝐓𝐎𝐌𝐈𝐂 𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐘 posted:

Mobilization reserves and its problems (part I)

Perhaps, one important fact needs to be mentioned, which might be derived from Russo-Ukrainian conflict - fact, which at first glance might appear skewed and incite a sharp reaction from the public.

It will sound like this: universal conscription is meaningless and useless.

At first glance it appears entirely contrary to all the practical evidence, which we observed over the course of 2022 - Ukraine, and Russia conducted mobilization activities, which can be included in the list of strategic factors which changed the course of the events on the battlefield.

However, it will be a very superficial analysis, which ignores the main underlying factors - despite the significant inheritance of military reserves of USSR and Warsaw Pact, one can observe in the armies a catastrophic deficit of absolutely everything, starting from firearms and equipment and ending with autotransport (not even counting armored vehicles)

The reality is that, the instruments of mobilization, like mass conscription - they are products of the industrial era, which can not be realized in the modern world dude economic and demographic changes in society. At present Russia is supporting its war machine exclusively due to soviet reserves, and Ukraine - due to massive military aid, and even that is not enough, for one of the armies to achieve some sort of standardization in equipment.

If we remove of the picture the reserves from the cold war, then we would see the complete senseless of mobilization - it would be impossible to outfit the conscripted personnel even with just firearms. And the reserves of the last century, I'll point out, are not bottomless - factually they're already exhausted, and most likely by the end of 2023 they will be completely exhausted in RF, and in Europe as well (without details I'll note, that this includes even the simplest types of weapons).

And there's no point in even mentioning about restocking them - it's an unrealistic process considering the total lack of industrial capacity on a global scale (not counting two or three countries on the planet, majority of them are experiencing problems producing not only weapons systems - for example mortars - but even bullets).

Any meaning in preparing conscription reserves in this situation does not exist de-facto - not to mention in the potential absence of strategic partners, which might potential support you with military supplies for an extended period of time.

Besides that, at present we can see a serious degradation of military theory: the practices of commanding massive armies are de-facto gone, like the standards of preparing combined arms units. From the point of view of mass, the last part is formally the backbone of any army, but in reality are mostly incapable of carrying out the simplest of combat tasks.

Creating mobilization reserve on the example of soviets is simply cargo culting, an incompetent attempt at copying the practice of a much more developed epoch. It ignores the level of military theory, the number of junior officers, military hardware, logistics, general staff. Is it possible to create those things on the level of 1950-60s of USSR? No. As practice shows, it's impossible even on the level of military theory, not to mention the material base.

More than that, to amass a large volume of military reserves a politically powerful government apparatus is necessary, along with a long term strategy of military buildup. History of the post soviet space clearly demonstrates, that achieving something like that is impossible - USSR has create a giant material base for conducting warfare on a colossal scale, but they could not avoid their collapse. Post soviet republics 15-20 years ago completely destroyed all of their soviet inheritance - Ukraine in 1991 possessed more than 20,000 tanks, and supplies for mobilization on her territory accounted for 10 million soldiers.

Where has all of that gone? It's a rhetorical question.

@atomiccherry 💯

_{(from t.me/atomiccherry/542, via tgsa)}

𝐀𝐓𝐎𝐌𝐈𝐂 𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐘 posted:

Mobilization reserves and its problems (part II)

It has to mentioned, that the soviet model of forming a mobilization reserve was based on a specific historical period with a clearly expressed specificity of expecting a total nuclear war and it's related doctrines.

Soviets planned to take control of the entire territory of Europe in 30-40 days, and the hypothetical war was supposed to surpass all previous efforts that ever happened before (and after).

Armies were supposed to fight while in constantly chaotic state of maneuver, suffering regular strikes from nuclear weapons, and at the same time the combat theater it self was limited territorially, and the armies were expected to move forward.

Based on those conclusions, the soviet mobilization model could not have any other format - from it was demanded a colossal amount of personell and equipment in the shortest period of time (in the conditions of nuclear war a massive army was a prerequisite - only being able to replenish absolutely any amount of casualties would allow it to remain combat capable).

But the epoch of the madness of global thermonuclear war has receded, but the mobilization model remained. This was related related to integral political factors - "military industrial mafia" was already incapable of letting go of all the resources and power that were under its control (armed forces and military industry at the very minimum absorbed 13% of USSR GDP for decades - resources on a monstruous scale).

But if the Soviet could afford these peculiar forms of military buildup from the point of view of industrial capacity, then in modern times an attempt to reproduce that model of mobilization appears rather ridiculous. The level of modern mobilization capabilities appears on the level of pre-industrial epochs, at best on the level of Russo-Japanese war.

P.S.: an important detail must be mentioned - soviet mobilization model was based not on a single summons to the army, but on the principle of constant military preparedness of the population - the army worked with reservists on a constant basis. Without it the conscription system itself is not functional.

P.P.S.: I periodically encounter some ones ridiculous thesis, stating, that "in the post soviet space the last time mass mobilization occurred was during WWII". That is a lie - during the invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968) USSR conducted a mobilization of almost a million reservists, incase of war breaking out between Warsaw Pact and NATO forces.

@atomiccherry 💯

_{(from t.me/atomiccherry/543, via tgsa)}

𝐀𝐓𝐎𝐌𝐈𝐂 𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐘 posted:

Mobilization reserves and its problems (part III)

Mass conscription had meaning had meaning when various countries had to maintain a reserve of specialists, capable of working with various types of weapons and technologies, which were stored in large quantities, and produced in sizeable quantities by the military industry.

What is the value of training a pool of specialists if you already have neither the equipment nor the weapons to match their specialties? The question is rhetorical.

In the modern world we reached a rather simple fact - using the mobilization reserve would provide the army only with light infantry (I think everyone already knows about the practice of forming rifle regiments), which at best posses civilian transport and simplest fire support.

Accordingly, any potential models of forming mobilization reserves have to start from that fact, at the foundation of which lie demographic, social, and economic properties of the country, and her industrial potential (to all of that listed we can easily attach "limitations").

Does all of the above mean that mobilization reserve should stop existing? Of course not, because wars will keep happening even in the absence of weapons or the industrial capacity to produce them. But it's creation, obviously, should take on a different form, primarily focused on economic problems, industry, and military theory.

Simply put, we are talking about creating some kind of standardised mass mobilisation training programmes (this has proved to be a large and still unresolved problem), creating a reserve of industrial capacity (e.g. encouraging private industry which could be required for military production if necessary), training a non-commissioned officer reserve corps of volunteers, developing some kind of simplified models of mobilisation armaments.

The year-round uprooting of hundreds of thousands of young men from the economy clearly does not help to solve all these problems, on the contrary, only complicates it; and in the case of mobilisation measures, as can be seen, personnel need full training regardless of whether they have long ago completed compulsory service. In short we are, whether we want to or not, returning to the format of army manning and the formation of a mobilisation reserve that existed in the early RKKA.

P.S.: There will surely be plenty of people who would like to point to the Israeli example, and they would all be wrong. It is not even a matter of Israeli security - the fact is that Israel is a full partner of the US. For that reason, the Israelis can militarise the population - if necessary, their economy will be fully supplied from abroad, and weapons and equipment will flow in almost unlimited quantities, as has happened before.

@atomiccherry 💯

_{(from t.me/atomiccherry/544, via tgsa)}

𝐀𝐓𝐎𝐌𝐈𝐂 𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐘 posted:

"Not counting two or three countries on the planet, majority of them are experiencing problems producing not only weapons systems - for example mortars - but even bullets".

To make it clearer, I will give the reader an example. It occurred in 2004, when USA invaded Iraq.

The essence of which is the following - The Iraqi campaign very quickly became a mishmash of urban fighting and accordingly required large quantities of small arms ammunition. On average, 300,000 (!) rifle cartridges were used per killed Iraqi rebel (not because Iraqis were bulletproof, of course, but because they had to shoot for long, intense periods, and the results were left something to be desired).

What did this lead to? The Americans very quickly began to run out of cartridges of all the "popular" calibres: 5.56, 7.62, 12.7. And their shortage was followed by another difficulty - the American military industry could not make up the shortage on its own. A total reduction of the military industry in 1990s left the USA with only one bullet production plant and several small ammunition factories.

In order to supply the troops, Washington had to conclude emergency contracts with Israel, Spain, buy out some NATO reserves and even acquire US-made World War II ammunition in Latin America (this story was about the 50 calibre).

At the time, little attention was paid to what was happening - the subject of mobilisation reserves 20 years ago looked like a crazy anachronism from somewhere straight out of the Ludendorff and Shaposhnikov era, and the world's military industry capacity was steadily shrinking.

In 1995, according to the Pentagon report NSIAD-95-89 ("Industrial Base: Inventory and Requirements for Artillery Ammunition"), the United States could produce 450,000 shells of all types per month. Washington now plans to reach a production level of 90,000 rounds per month by... 2026.

What exactly is the situation of everything listed above in less industrially developed countries (post soviet, for example) - is a devilish puzzle.

@atomiccherry 💯

_{(from t.me/atomiccherry/545, via tgsa)}

# ? Mar 17, 2023 19:04

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

cat botherer posted:

Sure, but you're talking an actual revolution at that point, which probably means the original reasons for a foreign war are moot.

very often foreign wars follow revolutions. and not all revolutions happen with force. and other possibilities like existential crisis could potentially cause it too.

Frosted Flake posted:

That they think they could do this without a revolution is probably what would trigger one.

well we make the folks to do it. it�s like massive sealifts. we make those folks and just keep lists of them in cushy reserve programs nobody pays attention to.

here�s what I think would trigger it. another country assuming we can�t do it anymore and acting on that assumption.

# ? Mar 17, 2023 19:05

Lostconfused: Oct 1, 2008

As for the 1917 revolutions.

Russians do like to remind everyone these days that it was a bourgeoisie revolution that overthrew the Tsar.

So honestly in USA it's probably various corporations that would try to tear down the federal government for cutting into their profits and interrupting trade with China more than somebody in the south getting upset at big guberment again.

# ? Mar 17, 2023 19:07

OhFunny: Jun 26, 2013; EXTREMELY PISSED AT THE DNC

I do remember reading an article in 2004/2005 about how the Iraq War was causing an ammunition shortage in the US and how some police departments couldn't refill the stocks because the army was buying everything they could get.

# ? Mar 17, 2023 19:46

Lostconfused: Oct 1, 2008

Oh, maybe this one is slightly more relevant.

𝐀𝐓𝐎𝐌𝐈𝐂 𝐂𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐑𝐘 posted:

"Same with total war. You can take people out of the economy and services, and that way you'll sink the country, and the government. Simply because this will contract many, today essential, areas."

https://t.me/saygin_opinion/8935

This is a very interesting topic, about which I've wanted to write for months - but for now let this be a small thesis.

Historically there were three types of mobilized economies: soviet, american, and japanese. The differences are significant, and first of all they are founded on the nature of the problem presented by Alexander Sayigin - the degree of harm to ones own economy.

Soviet type assumes prior accumulation and reserve of industrial capacity, strategic materials, technology, specialists - the preparations of the soviet war machine, according to soviet theorists, must happen before the outbreak of hostilities.

American type is built on the opposite principle - based on the experience of WWII USA bet on the expansion of military industries and army already in the middle of hostilities. America could always allow it self this because of the number of technical specialists in the country, which could easily be attracted from the civilian labour market into the MIC, and thanks to the lack of difficulties with tool production.

American and soviet approaches are united in one important detail - they assume a functional military economy separate from general government economy. That is military economy functions as its own separate entity (before or during the war), and the country doesn't collapse under its weight.

And here we come to the japanese type of mobilization.

Japanese type implies everything that only madmen call for - total involvement of civilian sectors of economy into military. Dreams of taking a "Coca-Cola" factory, herding convicts in there, adolescent, overseers with whips, and then having them file away at shells - that is exactly what the Japanese empire realized during the years of WWII.

The consequences of economic mobilization were monstrous - by 1945 the Japanese economy, according to indicators, returned to the level of 19th century. Even the total mining of ports and American strategic bombing could not cause this kind of harm, which Japanese officials, by their own measure, did with their political economy. Tokyo lost 33%-35% of national GDP.

But what a scale of mobilization! Parts for planes for being ground out in every private workshop. A lot of the time by hand of course. And there was still not enough planes. And this lad of a terrifying deficit - it turned out, that if everyone is busy making parts, there won't be anybody to produce mass consumer products.

For the same reason, even seemingly harmless ideas are pernicious, for example, sewing uniforms, footwear, and other elements by civilian industries. Of course they can do it, it's just that their detachment from the civilian supply chain can lead to very unexpected consequences (because of this american mobilization plans don't assume sending orders to private enterprises, but buying up suitable civilian production for military needs).

So the real aim of economic mobilisation does not lie in the revision of all the available resources of the country and their involvement in the war economy - the aim is that the war should have as little impact as possible on the bulk of the population and have a minimal impact on the standard of living and the functioning of the national economy.

P.S.: It should be pointed out separately that different types of mobilisation of economies imply the possibility of borrowing elements from each other - i.e. the Japanese built new factories, the US produced bombers and ships in civilian facilities and so on. What matters in this context is the overall strategy of action and their impact on the economy.

@atomiccherry 💯

_{(from t.me/atomiccherry/546, via tgsa)}

# ? Mar 17, 2023 19:46

Fell Mood: Jul 2, 2022; A terrible Fell look!

Bar Ran Dun posted:

here’s what I think would trigger it. another country assuming we can’t do it anymore and acting on that assumption.

Isn't it too late at that point?

# ? Mar 17, 2023 20:11

Smythe: Oct 12, 2003

Frosted Flake posted:

Conscript armies are more closely linked to popular participation in politics (and thus economics) because going to war is a political act. This is literally the foundation of conscription in the west. I mean, the entire notion of Citizen-Soldiers, from the French Republic on. You go to war for the state because you are directly involved in the state, there is a common purpose, welfare etc. It's why, for example, the CSA conscription system basically collapsed into desertion by 1863: The Slaveholder's Republic was not one where poor whites felt they had political control of the distribution of resources or direction of the war, so they voted with their feet. The Southern aristocracy massively over-participated in the military, which ours are sure to do the opposite of, and that still was not enough.

A conscript, even more than a volunteer, can simply vote with their feet. They can defy the state, bring the state to its knees, even lead to the defeat of the state, if the state does not provide them with a degree of citizenship commensurate with the sacrifices being demanded of soldiers. The CSA set up the first centrally administered welfare state in American history, despite being essentially founded on the principle of resisting central government, to administer pensions and other benefits to Soldier's Wives (capitals because this was considered an emerging and powerful political identity in the CSA). A half century before American women got the vote, women in the South were writing officials at all levels of government with petitions, that the state felt they must respond to, because if they did not adequately meet the needs of Soldier's Wives, it was understood they would simply leave and go home to do so.

This is without going into the many, many other examples in the 19th century. In antiquity, literally what separated democratic from oligarchic states was that the common people participated in the militaries of democratic states but could not be induced into serving oligarchs. Where the oligarchs tried, they quickly faced either revolution, because they had just armed a vast body of people who were now making political demands, or to varying degrees dissolved their oligarchy to keep those men in the field and prosecute the war. There was no way for oligarchs to retain a system where power and resources were controlled by a small group but arms were borne by a large one.

The reason that these came and went thoughtout the centuries, where we see oligarchic and feudal societies with a warrior elite, was that military technology allowed the participation by a small group of elite to have an outsized military effect. Now, as with the CSA, it bears repeating that the cost of this for Bronze Age charioteers, for medieval knights, Edo Samurai, Manchu Bannermen, was that they all had to participate in the military. Cavalry, worldwide, gave aristocracies a way to limit political and military participation to a few, because in many battles a handful of armoured knights would be killed to hundreds of footmen/ The population was not required to be under arms, was not armed to the same standard and so could not directly contest the political system violently. However, it also required cradle to grave military service by that elite, and they developed social practices that reinforced that, as well as providing a buffer to social conflict. Noblesse oblige, chivalry, bushido (not as imagined in Meiji Japan, but I digress), basically "nobility" as a social practice. This is so alien to our ruling class, who have a view of the world in terms of financial transactions rather than social bonds, as to be comical.

I mean, half the reason we think these things are silly and outdated is that it's incomprehensible that our ruling class would A) form the bulk of our military and B) owe us social obligations in a way intrinsically tied to their social position. Kinship, honour, nobility, all of these things served the very useful purpose of having the peasants continue to work for the ruling class without giving them political power. Power no longer had to be conceded to them because of military necessity, but peasants could always vote with their feet. As easy as it is for a conscript to make their political agency felt through non-participation, it's about a million times easier for a farmer.

Where do we see the emergence of Early Modern or at the very least Non-Feudal states? Where military forces, by some quirk of geography mostly, could not be the nobility on horseback. The Netherlands, which was a bog, Switzerland, for obvious reasons, northern Italy, the highlands of Scotland and Wales. These had �citizen� armies of pikemen (and bowmen 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿) which could remain on the field against the knights of other states. A bit of a chicken or egg thing, but their geography also meant that, besides not being able to provide knights for their own defence and so requiring mass participation in war and politics, (the thesis of this post is that they are the same thing), resisting the installation of a foreign nobility by their military organization being able to resist it, their own nobility could not impose themselves on the population. Both because they needed them to keep other states out, and because one noble with a pike will lose to 100 peasants also with pikes, where 1 knight on horseback could fight 100 peasants elsewhere in Europe. Because of that, they were socially organized differently.

This also happened outside of Europe but I don't possess a universal knowledge of military history. In West Africa there were 19th Century knights, with the resulting same sort of social organization in their societies because of geography and military technology. In other parts of Africa, societies were, egalitarian is not the right word, but tribal kingship was contingent on popular will. Woodland Indians similarly. Even when muskets came, the tribes that were the best at war, and so survived and expanded, were the most "democratic". The Iroquois Confederacy, because they put the most able bodied men in the field, was the most successful, for a time the dominant military power in upper North America (exceeding the Europeans, mind), so those men were all involved in the political direction of their society.

Which is a very long explanation for why our idiot failson soft handed, soft bodied ruling class of MBAs cannot force us to go to war, particularly one they do not fight in themselves, because they need us to fight it, which means they need to give us things. Being idiot fail sons, they may not realize it, but nevertheless can't even coerce us if push comes to shove because, quite literally, them and what army?

e: �Fascism� and war. There are many good books on this from the past 20 years. I blame Hannah Arendt for this, but basically Fascism still promised people things. Which group of people was of course selective based on anything-but-class, but for example Mussolini�s idea was that industry and labour would be united in a national project. Which meant that people would still directly benefit materially from a renewed social contract between the whole Italian people. Fascism was still something to fight and die for.

People think every day was like a week in April 1945, but even the Feldgendarmerie had to believe they and the nation were benefitting from what they were doing. Neoliberalism does not believe there is a society, it�s ability to exhort and coerce is entirely economic. The problem is that war is not a job, it is not rational individual actors in the marketplace.

Not least because any rational actor will look at E3 pay, see casualties from a global war with a superpower, see their country offering them nothing, not even a promise, see the ruling class not participating, and decide it�s not worth $28k a year to have a very good chance of dying.

Neoliberals, as others have said, eroded all common bonds, even those that make Fascism possible. They have never acted like there is an �America� where everybody makes collective sacrifices and in which there are collective, universal promises. Think about the loving Rust Belt. They have spent a generation showing they do not give a poo poo about the white working class, so how are they going to appeal to a shared future for white people, or Americans?

Remember Fascism is capital and labour putting class distinction aside to be together in one of those. Nobody believes they�re looking out for people on the basis of blood or nation, so they can�t organize mass participation in war along those lines either. Literally the same problem the CSA had. Poor Whites realized Richmond was fighting exclusively on behalf of the Planters, so being poor mattered more than being white, and 3/4 of them deserted.

drat this post owns

# ? Mar 17, 2023 20:22

Bar Ran Dun: Jan 22, 2006

Fell Mood posted:

Isn't it too late at that point?

it depends.

to some extent one can see some changes already happening as a result of the Ukraine war, action causes reaction.

I mean it depends on the specifics of the event.

# ? Mar 17, 2023 20:33

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

Trabisnikof posted:

There were 2.2 Million draftees in Vietnam. As of 2020 there were 5.5 million people under the supervision of adult correctional systems in the United States.

I think the idea of massively expanding the jail to conscript pipeline would be far more appealing politically than reinstating the draft. For one, since we�ve massively expanded the part of our population we imprison, we won�t suffer the same quality issues similar programs have seen in the past. It fits the neoliberal concept of a just world so well, going to war will finally give the unhoused �skin in the game.� And of course you could even structure it so it is all �voluntary.�

Would you rather serve 5 years in a private prison for the crime of felony camping on the side of the road, or �volunteer� to fight and get to eat something other than nutraloaf?

Some problems with this:

Felons in the US can't vote. That means they're not part of the body politic. There's no reason for them to defend a state that excludes them from all decision making including even the ability to vote for candidates who will repeal camping laws. The bottom line? Unless it's a promise of a full restoration of citizenship, improvement of material conditions (because they aren't going back to camping on the side of the road after you've armed them), and a belief that citizenship is worth the sacrifices they're being asked to take on (because if votes don't matter, why risk your life to earn the vote? If you don't earn the vote, why risk your life at all?), this won't find success. Anyone can understand that eating nutraloaf and riding out five years is better than being dead, and in a high intensity conventional war, people will realize what those odds are.

For historical antecedent, besides all of the societies that tried arming slaves and then asked for their weapons back so they could return to servitude, there's the Bitch Wars in the USSR, where the GULAG and prison systems were convulsed by conflict between those who agreed to fight in the Great Patriotic War and then reoffended, and those that stayed in prison.

There's a paper on it, but it bases its understanding on the Soviet prison and GULAG systems on Solzhenitsyn and Anne Applebaum, and consequently can't really explain why people would take, or refuse, the deal.

Frosted Flake has issued a correction as of 21:03 on Mar 17, 2023

# ? Mar 17, 2023 20:59

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Lostconfused posted:

As for the 1917 revolutions.

Russians do like to remind everyone these days that it was a bourgeoisie revolution that overthrew the Tsar.

So honestly in USA it's probably various corporations that would try to tear down the federal government for cutting into their profits and interrupting trade with China more than somebody in the south getting upset at big guberment again.

Though thats an overstatement, it was all socialists that over threw the tsar first and than everyone spent several months figuring out if they want to go the dogmatic Marxist route first and let Russia develop capitalism or just lets get the ball rolling on socialism already

# ? Mar 17, 2023 21:12

skooma512: Feb 8, 2012; You couldn't grok my race car, but you dug the roadside blur.

OhFunny posted:

I do remember reading an article in 2004/2005 about how the Iraq War was causing an ammunition shortage in the US and how some police departments couldn't refill the stocks because the army was buying everything they could get.

IIRC, one of the reasons the Stargate TV shows switched to P90s from MP5 was that the Iraq War was depleting 9mm stocks, but not the uncommon non-NSN 5.7.

# ? Mar 17, 2023 21:34

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

skooma512 posted:

IIRC, one of the reasons the Stargate TV shows switched to P90s from MP5 was that the Iraq War was depleting 9mm stocks, but not the uncommon non-NSN 5.7.

Oh I didn't know that

# ? Mar 17, 2023 21:37

sullat: Jan 9, 2012

Frosted Flake posted:

Some problems with this:

Felons in the US can't vote. That means they're not part of the body politic. There's no reason for them to defend a state that excludes them from all decision making including even the ability to vote for candidates who will repeal camping laws. The bottom line? Unless it's a promise of a full restoration of citizenship, improvement of material conditions (because they aren't going back to camping on the side of the road after you've armed them), and a belief that citizenship is worth the sacrifices they're being asked to take on (because if votes don't matter, why risk your life to earn the vote? If you don't earn the vote, why risk your life at all?), this won't find success. Anyone can understand that eating nutraloaf and riding out five years is better than being dead, and in a high intensity conventional war, people will realize what those odds are.

For historical antecedent, besides all of the societies that tried arming slaves and then asked for their weapons back so they could return to servitude, there's the Bitch Wars in the USSR, where the GULAG and prison systems were convulsed by conflict between those who agreed to fight in the Great Patriotic War and then reoffended, and those that stayed in prison.

There's a paper on it, but it bases its understanding on the Soviet prison and GULAG systems on Solzhenitsyn and Anne Applebaum, and consequently can't really explain why people would take, or refuse, the deal.

His argument isn't that it's going to be successful, just that it's going to be tried. You're the one who keeps saying neoliberals don't learn from their mistakes because they don't believe they're making mistakes, how can we expect them to learn from someone else's?

# ? Mar 17, 2023 22:14

NeonPunk: Dec 21, 2020

skooma512 posted:

IIRC, one of the reasons the Stargate TV shows switched to P90s from MP5 was that the Iraq War was depleting 9mm stocks, but not the uncommon non-NSN 5.7.

Why would that matter for a television show, were they using live rounds during filming?

# ? Mar 17, 2023 22:22

redneck nazgul: Apr 25, 2013

NeonPunk posted:

Why would that matter for a television show, were they using live rounds during filming?

you still use blanks during training and every single military unit wanted to be tactical and build a cinderblock and plywood village to practice clearing rooms

# ? Mar 17, 2023 22:24

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

sullat posted:

His argument isn't that it's going to be successful, just that it's going to be tried. You're the one who keeps saying neoliberals don't learn from their mistakes because they don't believe they're making mistakes, how can we expect them to learn from someone else's?

Fair enough.

There's a great book on the effect of the Great War on monarchies. King George V dramatically changed his relationship with the British people as soon as the war started, and demanded the entire Royal Family do so as well. He visited the trenches often, he wore the same uniform as anyone else, he spent a great deal of time visiting hospitals and presenting enlisted soldiers with medals. He changed how the Royal Family was addressed to, even their last name, to bring them closer to the British people. He greatly reformed court etiquette and shrunk the court. He made sure the media reported on the Royal Family as a family, focusing on their support of soldiers, the wounded and widows, in an effort to remove social barriers. I had written a lot more about this, because there are some really good biographies of George V, but all of that to say, he renegotiated the social contract.

Essentially, he did this because he realized the things we'd been talking about.

Tsar Nicholas II of Russia did not. For example, when a person encountered the Tsar's portrait, they were required to stop and bow or curtsy as a sign of respect. This was considered a sign of loyalty and obedience to the Tsar and his authority. Remember this is not the Tsar himself but only his portrait. This kind of imperiousness and tone deafness, needless to say, had consequences.

Which monarchies survived the Great War and which ones didn't did not merely reflect who won or lost the war, it reflected the state of their societies before war broke out, and the willingness and ability of those in charge to meet the moment.

All of this to say, I agree with you, they will probably make the same mistakes as Wilhelm II and Nicholas II, and as we've said war with China would almost certainly go in one of those directions. I suppose the question is if they end up in Huis Doorn or Yekaterinburg, so to speak.

# ? Mar 17, 2023 23:20

Lostconfused: Oct 1, 2008

Considering the protests and political violence, after COVID, I would be very careful with seeing how far you can push the people.

# ? Mar 18, 2023 00:04

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Frosted Flake posted:

Some problems with this:

Felons in the US can't vote.

Wrong. It is a state issue, and the number of states with blanket bans are small. Many disallow voting for felons actively serving a sentence. In some states, everyone can vote. In others, everyone outside prison can vote. Some (lovely) state laws make it so you cannot vote until court fees are paid. Then there are weird ones like Virginia where the law is no vote at all after felony conviction, but the governor has been granting permission to vote anyway.

There has been a lot of movement on this over the last couple of decades.

Maps and stuff: https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voter-restoration/felony-disenfranchisement-laws-map

https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/felon-voting-rights

# ? Mar 18, 2023 00:15

Frosted Flake: Sep 13, 2011; Semper Shitpost Ubique

Seems like a lot of clauses for "service guarantees citizenship".

# ? Mar 18, 2023 00:40

mlmp08: Jul 11, 2004; Prepare for my priapic projectile's exalted penetration; Nap Ghost

Frosted Flake posted:

Seems like a lot of clauses for "service guarantees citizenship".

I don�t think so. Would take a tortured and inaccurate reading or lack of knowledge of state and US law to get to that conclusion. Sometimes you�ll see some military guy claim your life is over if you avoid the draft, but the truth is far from it.

# ? Mar 18, 2023 00:45

Animal-Mother: Feb 14, 2012; RABBIT RABBIT
RABBIT RABBIT

skooma512 posted:

IIRC, one of the reasons the Stargate TV shows switched to P90s from MP5 was that the Iraq War was depleting 9mm stocks, but not the uncommon non-NSN 5.7.

lamo

"sergeant, procure supplies from nearby towns"

"okay, i'll loot the tv shows"

# ? Mar 18, 2023 00:47

genericnick: Dec 26, 2012

skooma512 posted:

IIRC, one of the reasons the Stargate TV shows switched to P90s from MP5 was that the Iraq War was depleting 9mm stocks, but not the uncommon non-NSN 5.7.

What would they use the ammo for even?

# ? Mar 18, 2023 00:51

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

Frosted Flake posted:

Fair enough.

There's a great book on the effect of the Great War on monarchies. King George V dramatically changed his relationship with the British people as soon as the war started, and demanded the entire Royal Family do so as well. He visited the trenches often, he wore the same uniform as anyone else, he spent a great deal of time visiting hospitals and presenting enlisted soldiers with medals. He changed how the Royal Family was addressed to, even their last name, to bring them closer to the British people. He greatly reformed court etiquette and shrunk the court. He made sure the media reported on the Royal Family as a family, focusing on their support of soldiers, the wounded and widows, in an effort to remove social barriers. I had written a lot more about this, because there are some really good biographies of George V, but all of that to say, he renegotiated the social contract.

Essentially, he did this because he realized the things we'd been talking about.

Tsar Nicholas II of Russia did not. For example, when a person encountered the Tsar's portrait, they were required to stop and bow or curtsy as a sign of respect. This was considered a sign of loyalty and obedience to the Tsar and his authority. Remember this is not the Tsar himself but only his portrait. This kind of imperiousness and tone deafness, needless to say, had consequences.

Which monarchies survived the Great War and which ones didn't did not merely reflect who won or lost the war, it reflected the state of their societies before war broke out, and the willingness and ability of those in charge to meet the moment.

All of this to say, I agree with you, they will probably make the same mistakes as Wilhelm II and Nicholas II, and as we've said war with China would almost certainly go in one of those directions. I suppose the question is if they end up in Huis Doorn or Yekaterinburg, so to speak.

Genuine question: what do you think would've happened if Nicholas had ICBM's?

# ? Mar 18, 2023 00:51

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

It is an interesting phenomenon that even with the high profit margins on military equipment, an active conflict we are expending military equipment in, and compete capture of the government by the MIC we still don�t see them massively increasing production of military equipment in the US.

Is it because we can�t actually scale the production even though it would boost corporate profits? Is government support for war too fickle even with the MIC lobby, and the MIC doesn�t want to risk the investments not paying off? Are we so far down the neocapitalist rabbit hole that the MIC can�t make the numbers on �make more product to make more profits� look good on paper versus �stock buybacks�?

# ? Mar 18, 2023 00:53

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

Trabisnikof posted:

It is an interesting phenomenon that even with the high profit margins on military equipment, an active conflict we are expending military equipment in, and compete capture of the government by the MIC we still don’t see them massively increasing production of military equipment in the US.

Is it because we can’t actually scale the production even though it would boost corporate profits? Is government support for war too fickle even with the MIC lobby, and the MIC doesn’t want to risk the investments not paying off? Are we so far down the neocapitalist rabbit hole that the MIC can’t make the numbers on “make more product to make more profits” look good on paper versus “stock buybacks”?

Yes

# ? Mar 18, 2023 00:58

Slavvy: Dec 11, 2012

Imagine tech startups but with weapons, that's pretty much it imo.

Building up capacity costs money in the short term and has a steady return in the long term. Promising incredible wunderfarts artisinally crafted by the dozen if you merely invest ten trillion dollars has an incredible effect on shareholder value while costing nothing. Then you take that money and do financial shenanigans to make more. All of this is much easier and more profitable than actually making stuff.

# ? Mar 18, 2023 00:59

genericnick: Dec 26, 2012

Lostconfused posted:

Considering the protests and political violence, after COVID, I would be very careful with seeing how far you can push the people.

Lol, nah.

# ? Mar 18, 2023 01:19

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

genericnick posted:

Lol, nah.

I don't know how anyone can think thatbafter seeing how quickly everyone was mollified for Joe Biden

# ? Mar 18, 2023 01:22

Lostconfused: Oct 1, 2008

Yeah nobody freaked out about what happened only a few weeks later. You're right. I just imagined it.

# ? Mar 18, 2023 01:23

skooma512: Feb 8, 2012; You couldn't grok my race car, but you dug the roadside blur.

genericnick posted:

What would they use the ammo for even?

Blanks are still made from brass casings.

Also, I was mistaken. They switched away from MP-5s in 2000/2001, before the wars. I haven't found a definitive source as to why they switched, but P90s eject casing downward instead of to the side so they probably liked that in addition to their look. The ammo shortage anecdote is actually related to the 5.7 the P90 fired rather than the 9mm, and they did have a shortage, hence why we started seeing them use 5.56 G36Ks in season 8/2004 and why those seasons have more off screen gunshots and alien weapons.

# ? Mar 18, 2023 01:25

genericnick: Dec 26, 2012

KomradeX posted:

I don't know how anyone can think thatbafter seeing how quickly everyone was mollified for Joe Biden

Also claiming that (violent) anti covid protests are a threat to the West is similar nonsensical to claiming that progroms threaten the Czar's hold on power. The idea that you should enforce public health over private privileges is very much anathema to the ruling ideology.

# ? Mar 18, 2023 01:32

Lostconfused: Oct 1, 2008

You need to stop arguing with people in your head.

# ? Mar 18, 2023 01:33

KomradeX: Oct 29, 2011

skooma512 posted:

Blanks are still made from brass casings.

Also, I was mistaken. They switched away from MP-5s in 2000/2001, before the wars. I haven't found a definitive source as to why they switched, but P90s eject casing downward instead of to the side so they probably liked that in addition to their look. The ammo shortage anecdote is actually related to the 5.7 the P90 fired rather than the 9mm, and they did have a shortage, hence why we started seeing them use 5.56 G36Ks in season 8/2004 and why those seasons have more off screen gunshots and alien weapons.

Also the P-90 is a bitching looking gun for a scifi show

# ? Mar 18, 2023 01:34

genericnick: Dec 26, 2012

Lostconfused posted:

You need to stop arguing with people in your head.

What protests are you talking about then?

# ? Mar 18, 2023 01:34

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 26, 2024 02:32

yellowcar: Feb 14, 2010

the P90 is too often OP in BF games

# ? Mar 18, 2023 01:34

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > The US will lose WW3

«‹›605 »