|
I'm not kidding when I say that the Western world is extraordinarily violent when compared to other countries. We respond to any problems with violence first. In the US even the only go-to political metaphor for dealing with domestic issues is to declare a war on some thing or even some abstract concept. Our societies are rife with violence, our fiction is violent and the only thing that ever stops us is violence.
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 13:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
its actually kinda insidious how the american way of war, i.e. just razing an entire country to the ground no matter what, is seen as the only reasonable strategy
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 13:17
|
|
|
like, you have people unironically arguing that fighting a limited war is somehow inherently wrong
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 13:24
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:its actually kinda insidious how the american way of war, i.e. just razing an entire country to the ground no matter what, is seen as the only reasonable strategy It's an outgrowth of America having the ability to produce so much materiel in the world wars. It developed into the "American Way of War" when the same methods that had defeated Germany in the Hundred Days and Northwest Europe were applied to every other American conflict. America did not have a plan to stop the DPRK at Pusan, per se, but they had tremendous amounts of firepower. In Vietnam, American 2lts going into contact would just form line and carry out a frontal, but they were able to get away with this lack of tactical acumen because they had tremendous amounts of firepower, and the same was true all the way up the line, to the point of using B-52s, firepower America otherwise just had lying around, to carry out Arc Light strikes and flatten swaths of jungle. I don't think it's insidious, exactly, so much as the natural result of 20th century America being almost uniquely able to produce Coca Cola and artillery shells, and transport them anywhere on earth. There's a reason McNamara went on to work at Ford, then came back to run the war in Vietnam. That kind of production line analysis propelled America. The Edsel was a lovely car, but it was produced well, and in volume. America's wars didn't go well, but munitions were always available in volume. They had the material means to go ahead with flawed designs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 13:27
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:like, you have people unironically arguing that fighting a limited war is somehow inherently wrong because every post-WW2 conflict that the US lost, when it's even been admitted that it was lost, is argued that it was due to politicians holding back the military from using overwhelming firepower Truman stopped MacArthur from nuking the Chinese, the Pentagon did a gradual bombing campaign rather than unleash the B-52s from day one, and so on and so forth
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 13:29
|
|
|
Which is particularly interesting now. See, America never saw the limit of their productive capacity in a war before. That led, as Gradenko says, to the excuse being perennially available that there was more they could do. They had mountains of 750lb bombs they didn't drop on Vietnam, but could have. Well, there's no point trying to explain to people that there's no reason to suppose it would have made a difference. They're from the Show Me State, they see the bombs, they won't believe they wouldn't make a difference until they're dropped. Only, America isn't the country of the mid 60's anymore, or even 1991. There are limits to American production, pretty substantial ones. This is obviously a problem because if American strategy consists of "throw more materiel at the problem", the transmutation, which we already saw in the GWOT, into "throw more money at the problem" is going to produce diminishing returns. Worse, that money is the product of finance, and it's spent on finance, the actual coal and iron, bombs and rifles, those aren't at the government's command the way they were. So, how is America going to respond the next time it's at a strategic impasse?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 13:38
|
|
|
Whats that old joke about American military doctrine being you can't figure out how to beat something that doesn't exist
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 13:45
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:like, you have people unironically arguing that fighting a limited war is somehow inherently wrong It's the foreign policy equivalent of Americans insisting that it is morally wrong (or even physically impossible) to fire a gun with the intent to wound someone rather than kill, and relatedly that the only reason to point a gun at someone is to kill them. Even though police forces from even other Western countries regularly and deliberately do both. The American ultraviolence *must* be the norm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 14:26
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:this is a very funny video if you have an hour to watch a liberal try to imagine a world where financial gravity doesn't exist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqjvTKFufuk I got around to listen to it. It's indeed very funny. Just endless Ls for the first half and embarrassing solutions in the 2nd half. Like "LockMart making more Patriot missiles themselves without an advanced order because they are confident somebody will order them". I bet those "extra production" of Patriot missiles are just numbers on a spreadsheet and LockMart is trailing a new grif scheme. I hate this guy's accent but I still listen to the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 14:32
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:I'm not kidding when I say that the Western world is extraordinarily violent when compared to other countries. We respond to any problems with violence first. In the US even the only go-to political metaphor for dealing with domestic issues is to declare a war on some thing or even some abstract concept. Our societies are rife with violence, our fiction is violent and the only thing that ever stops us is violence. and that’s why I promise, if elected, to ensure our society has the resources it needs to win the war on violence
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 15:34
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:Which is particularly interesting now. See, America never saw the limit of their productive capacity in a war before. That led, as Gradenko says, to the excuse being perennially available that there was more they could do. They had mountains of 750lb bombs they didn't drop on Vietnam, but could have. Well, there's no point trying to explain to people that there's no reason to suppose it would have made a difference. They're from the Show Me State, they see the bombs, they won't believe they wouldn't make a difference until they're dropped. You're correct that the US did not see the limit of their productive capacity in the 20th century. However I must absolutely stress that the South was crushed in the ACW by limits to its productive capacity and this was the prevailing view of how the North won (more men, more guns, more food, more ammo) for most who considered the issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 15:45
|
|
|
yeah, sherman and grant were just jerking off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:yeah, sherman and grant were just jerking off. Hey, who are we to criticize what they do in their tents?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 15:53
|
|
|
Sherman and Grant did pretty incredible things, but by the mid 20th century these were forgotten in favor of the "Northern production versus Southern élan" narrative.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 16:04
|
|
|
Speleothing posted:Sherman and Grant did pretty incredible things, but by the mid 20th century these were forgotten in favor of the "Northern production versus Southern élan" narrative. "por que no los dos" It's a very interesting subversion there with the rhetoric around it: given how it turned out in terms of a political discussion (and from the little I've read around the ACW), the argument of industrial power is thrown around in a pejorative manner. It's a great thing to notice because it seems to apply really well for today, as the culmination of that process: there's an admiring tone of the southern élan, of it's soldiers fighting in rags and dire prospects of ammo and rationing food, etc like, what the gently caress, this is a thorough operational disaster. Élan in those conditions matters little. imho, there's a hunch in me that the congratulatory/self-appeasing historiography of the American South there (with very clear political purposes) did much to profoundly influence the 20th century American military in that direction, instead of highly praising the feats of logistics, organization etc of the Union. "The gentry soldier" should have been wiped out, but rehabilitating officers into the US army would of course have consequences
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 16:41
|
|
|
And it feeds back into the narrative about the 20th century military that we had the capacity to defeat anyone, even ourselves, and it's only our weak politicians who won't do it. We knew what a lack of ammunition & materiel looks like and we never ran into it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 16:57
|
|
|
DJJIB-DJDCT posted:So, how is America going to respond the next time it's at a strategic impasse? *taps thread title*
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:01
|
|
|
Today, we do have an under-production problem and it's been covered up with a focus on precision strikes against infrastructure and special operations against political leadership. Until Ukraine showed that method doesn't work against peer or near peer enemies. Which is basically the point of this entire thread, reiterated.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:02
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:"por que no los dos" the US during the lincoln administration was doing incredible feats of logistics that epic prussians wouldn't ever manage to do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:06
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:given how it turned out in terms of a political discussion (and from the little I've read around the ACW), the argument of industrial power is thrown around in a pejorative manner. it never fails that any argument about Grant vs Lee has someone saying that Grant only won because he had more warm bodies to throw at the South and like... okay???
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
dead gay comedy forums posted:"por que no los dos" It's the same admiration as for the Nazis, who were also constrained in their production power, isn't it? The US apparently hates the way it wins its wars. But then when they lose they blame not being able to have done more of that same thing. It's a very curious thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:it never fails that any argument about Grant vs Lee has someone saying that Grant only won because he had more warm bodies to throw at the South and like... okay??? Could grant have beaten lee in a fistfight?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
The Confederates were defeated by a north who evilly used their superior economy and industry against them and also wanted to invade the south for economic reasons.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:34
|
|
|
Lee probably would have kicked Grant's rear end in a fistfight, Lee had like 2-3 inches and 50 pounds on him. Grant was, by most accounts, kind of a skinny nerd. So the coward Grant instead brought 100,000 of his bros to the fight and hid behind them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:39
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:It's the same admiration as for the Nazis, who were also constrained in their production power, isn't it? What idealism does to a motherfucker
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:47
|
|
|
Crazycryodude posted:Lee probably would have kicked Grant's rear end in a fistfight, Lee had like 2-3 inches and 50 pounds on him. Grant was, by most accounts, kind of a skinny nerd. So the coward Grant instead brought 100,000 of his bros to the fight and hid behind them. Grant was like 15 years younger, he'd have kicked Lee's 58-year-old rear end in a fistfight. A swordfight tho, that would be a good question
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:48
|
|
|
This is not the The US will lose The Civil War Fistfight thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
Attempt no landings here
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:52
|
|
|
Yeah now it's the swordfight thread. Forgot the age difference, Grant probably would win the fistfight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 17:53
|
|
|
Orange Devil posted:It's the same admiration as for the Nazis, who were also constrained in their production power, isn't it? That was very well put.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:00
|
|
|
stephenthinkpad posted:Iran did the revenge operation so slowly because they wanted to go through the UN first and let 3rd party countries take a side or not take a side; then Iran gave time to let regional neighboring countries take a side, especially the ones that have US bases (2 smaller and more neutral countries Qatar and Kuwait took the "don't get your fights near me" stand). Iran telegraphed the attack, allowed Israeli allies plenty of time to get into position, and used the minimum amount of missiles necessary to overwhelm their air defense and still land a few hits on a military target. Its a statement that Iran can hit Israel at any time and theres nothing Israel or its allies can do about it
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:01
|
|
|
Am I right in assuming nothing about the whole "we gave just about everything in our stockpile to Ukraine and Israel" situation has changed in the last few months? What the gently caress would the USA even wage a ware against Iran with, rocks and sticks?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:04
|
|
|
SixteenShells posted:Am I right in assuming nothing about the whole "we gave just about everything in our stockpile to Ukraine and Israel" situation has changed in the last few months? What the gently caress would the USA even wage a ware against Iran with, rocks and sticks? It’s not that true, the US just foisted all the crap it doesn’t want on Ukraine plus some stuff they wanted tested and patted itself on the back about what a great ally and defender of freedom it is. You can’t give them enough to actually win, that defeats the purpose.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:10
|
|
|
SMEGMA_MAIL posted:It’s not that true, the US just foisted all the crap it doesn’t want on Ukraine plus some stuff they wanted tested and patted itself on the back about what a great ally and defender of freedom it is. You can’t give them enough to actually win, that defeats the purpose. There are no new M777s coming, for anyone, that's all gone. Ditto M109. Frankly, ditto 155mm shells.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:21
|
|
|
The US is out of gear to fight a conventional ground war. Luckily, Israel was already incapable of fighting a conventional ground war so it doesnt matter. Any Israeli attack on Iran is going to be missiles and jets, which the US still has plenty of
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 18:48
|
|
|
The US should have given all their tanks to Ukraine, they don't need them against China and Iran anyway. Your NATO tanks are supposed to be used on the European plain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:29
|
|
|
Tankbuster posted:the US during the lincoln administration was doing incredible feats of logistics that epic prussians wouldn't ever manage to do. In retrospect this makes the author of the Harry Flashman books being so dismissive of it funnynand very obviously British
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:31
|
|
|
god i love consent manufacturing
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:god i love consent manufacturing We just don't know why Iran launched an unprovoked and unsolicited attack. It's baffling really, no possible explanation. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 17:24 |
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:god i love consent manufacturing The second sentence literally answers the first, what the hell
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2024 19:46
|
|