Post: #1

I was struck by the following passage in a brief post on the amusing recent "Atlantic invasion" thread:

(06-12-2014 11:10 PM)nek Wrote:  

(06-12-2014 10:25 PM)la_mode Wrote:  Too much fascination with wars lately on the board. It's getting strange.

Not to sound too tin foil hat, and I understand that there are certain pockets of conflict going on around the world, but it does seem that western society is collectively in a lull right now, as if we're waiting for something to happen, or something perhaps needs to happen. And maybe that's where this fascination is stemming from.

I believe that this post is reaching, instinctively and inchoately, towards one of the most important and explanatory facts about our time, which should be articulated and stated more clearly:

We are in the late stage of an extended peacetime that has become stale and overripe. A major war is craved, necessary, and inevitable. This will not be a "civil war" of any kind but a major global conflict. In its wake and as its direct consequence, the cultural and societal trends associated with decline and decadence will be obliterated as if they never existed, and mankind will be able to make decisive and game-changing advances on a number of fronts.

Let me now address some of these points in more detail:

1. The nature and point of wars is largely misunderstood

Wars are generally viewed as purposeless and purely destructive phenomena that result from human irrationality or miscalculation. Alternatively, they are seen as the result of cynical calculation by the "ruling classes" that exploit the slaughter of "subservient classes" for their nefarious purposes.

Both of these ideas miss the real point of wars. Major wars are necessary as a device that the human being uses to put itself in a state of combat pressure. This state allows men to decisively mobilize their resources to make revolutionary and otherwise often impossible to achieve technological progress.

The male human animal knows that it needs to make progress against materials; and it senses that the state that enables it to make such progress is a state of combat pressure in which the least action has consequences that are a matter of life and death. This state of unquestioned and totalized shared real-time purposefulness is what makes experiences of war so memorable and significant to men; it is what makes friendships forged in war the deepest that men are capable of.

There has never been a major war that did not bring in its wake game-changing and lasting advances in technology. The knowledge that enables these advances is brewed during the lulls of peacetime -- a state of constant war is an idea just as absurd as a state of constant peace. But major wars supply the concentrated mobilization which enables these advances to be implemented in a revolutionary way, unconstrained by the excessive caution and risk aversion that characterizes periods of peacetime, and especially their late, stale stages. It also sweeps away old structures and infrastructure and forces rebuilding from the ground up with novel and more advanced technologies.

2. The late stages of an extended peacetime are experienced as periods of decadence and decline -- but these trends are utterly obliterated by a major war

Just as periodic wars are needed to put men in intensely purposeful situations of totalized combat pressure, the extended peacetime renders men dull, confused and purposeless when it goes on for long enough. Generations of men who have not experienced the mobilization of combat pressure, or even the relief and purposefulness of rebuilding during the early postwar period, become progressively weaker and unfocused. This diffuseness renders men effeminate. Conversely, women become crazed and aggressive when men do not make war. The best and strongest men drift into fields such as finance which attempt to recreate a simulacrum of the real thing -- situations resembling combat pressure (the making of money being its closest analog), where men can test their mettle in real time. The power of women in society rises, and in the late, stale stages of the extended peacetime, the culture appears to be decaying and decadent.

All the phenomena of cultural decline that are so frequently documented on this forum and elsewhere are nothing more than a direct consequence of the idiocy, distraction, and concentration on trivia, that characterize the late, stale peace. The stale peace is what brings about "transgender pastors" and "trigger warnings". As men and women lose their natural roles and sense of proper place and purpose, the family crumbles and fertility rates decline. Men wander as if in a daze of idiocy and purposelessness, and women, who need men to be men, become dumb and belligerent attention whores trying to incite and provoke them.

Yet these trends, which seem so inexorable, have far less real strength than they appear to -- they are like a horror movie zombie, seemingly unstoppable in its ambling gait, but crumbling into a pile of old cardboard and junk from a direct head shot. Similarly, once the long stale peace is brought to an end by a major war, all these phenomena will be routed as if they never existed -- as the slow disgusting dreams of a drunken stupor are routed by a cold shower and a pot of strong black coffee. Men will become men as they rediscover their purpose and concentration, and women will remain women but will be brought to their proper station in life as men become men. Fertility rates will skyrocket (as they did in the baby boom after the last world war) when human beings see the reality of carnage and violent death. And idiotic worries about "controlling risk" at every turn will yield to a wave of frantic innovation and restructuring, a revolutionary period of applying, extending and implementing the knowledge that was brewed during the long peacetime.

3. There will be no "civil war" but a major world conflict, most likely in the Pacific theater.

The fantasies of a "civil war" in the US are just that -- idle fantasies. While some of the animosities between right and left are real and acute, there is not sufficient point or interest in such a war. No one can get excited about a war that would be fought with the weapons of yesterday and will never enable the concentration on advances in technology that mankind needs and craves. Even the minor skirmishes that we fought in the recent past, such as our tentative and limited engagements in the Middle East, enabled, on a small scale, the testing and refinement of certain important technologies such as drones, remote control and sensing, and coordination of these technologies with the human eye and hand in both combat and military field surgery. The next major war will be a savage conflict between major world powers that will enable an exponentially greater scale of advance in these as well as completely different and novel fields.

The most natural place for such a conflict to occur is the Pacific, and the most likely enemy is China, whose governing elite is increasingly militarized and ambitious, and which is pressurized by an excess of young men and other severe internal problems. At some point, when the Chinese come to believe -- incorrectly -- that they are ready, they will directly challenge US military supremacy in the Pacific. This will light the fuse on the fire of a major global conflict.

Such a war will be savage; limited nuclear exchanges possibly including successful delivery of nuclear bombs to the US mainland are entirely plausible, maybe even likely. The US will prevail because of the decisive and different-in-kind superiority of our military that will not be bridged on any foreseeable time horizon, though it is possible that we will suffer early setbacks as we did in World War 2. The cost will be extremely high, and many lives will come to a bad and tragic end. But in its course, and in its wake, the stale peace will be obliterated, and many things, some of them undreamed of in today's science fiction, will become reality seemingly overnight.

Finally. There is much that is shameful and distasteful about the stale peace; but as with an overripe fruit in its late stages of decay, there is something to be said for savoring its taste and enjoying its disgusting sweetness while it lasts. But know that while it won't end tomorrow, it most certainly will not last forever. It has entered its very late stage, which can still be surprisingly long and seem even longer. But we are indeed all waiting for something to happen -- and so it will.

Post: #2

I've had a theory for awhile that boredom of the collective unconscious can lead to war, so maybe it's coming.

I think it's part of mass irrationality, not something desirable. The idea that we need a nuclear war or a civil war to slap down the bitches or end "decadence" seems, well, fucking insane.

It's a bit of a canard that war is going to bring greater overall advances in technology. Yes, some weapons are developed. On the other hand, a lot of other research and production gets sidelined. For example, mass television broadcasting was delayed by WWII. At most things are sped up a few years. Some of those things would be better off not being invented, too.

How many of these guys thirsting for war have tasted it? I've had a taste, and it was not pleasant.

Post: #3

I completely share Lizard's point of view, the only diference is the tehnicalities. The way I see it, it is much more likely that the next major conflict will bring the end of USA as a superpower, instead of it being another triumph. We will see though, I think we are at least a decade away from it, China will for sure wait to maximise its alliance with Russia first before initiating a conflict. In the end, I think that all major wars started when one side came to the point of having 50% chance to win the escalation and reposition itself on the global playing field.

Post: #4

Freud wrote about the Death Drive,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_drive

"In classical Freudian psychoanalytic theory, the death drive (German: Todestrieb) is the drive towards death, self-destruction and the return to the inorganic: "the hypothesis of a death instinct, the task of which is to lead organic life back into the inanimate state"

From Civilization and Its Discontents,
"Freud applied his new theoretical construct in Civilization and Its Discontents (1930) to the difficulties inherent in Western civilization - indeed, in civilization and in social life as a whole. In particular, given that "a portion of the [death] instinct is diverted towards the external world and comes to light as an instinct of aggressiveness', he saw 'the inclination to aggression...[as] the greatest impediment to civilization".[26] The need to overcome such aggression entailed the formation of the [cultural] superego: "We have even been guilty of the heresy of attributing the origin of conscience to this diversion inwards of aggressiveness".[27] The presence thereafter in the individual of the superego and a related sense of guilt - "Civilization, therefore, obtains mastery over the individual's dangerous desire for aggression by...setting up an agency within him to watch over it"[28] - leaves an abiding sense of uneasiness inherent in civilized life, thereby providing a structural explanation for 'the suffering of civilized man'.[29]"

Sounds familiar

Jung I believe, predicted a world war based on what clients were expressing to him. I believe it had to do with unexpressed aggression.

It seems humanity, to get to the next stage of evolution has to learn to express aggression, not repress or suppress aggression. ( feminism, political correctness, thought-control, the stuff that's spoken about in here )

Post: #5

Tyler Cowen had a piece in the NYTimes with similar ideas yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot...rowth.html

Quote:Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.

It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.

Post: #6

Anyone who craves war has never experienced it.

For all of my childhood, the Second World War seemed like the major event from which everything happening today was rooted.

The grand slam of 9/11, the Iraq war, the global economic crisis, and feminism gone too far seems to have replaced it in importance for world events today.

I fear that we are finally at the point where we no longer feel or remember the horrors of war that did those emerging from the ruins of 1945.

Post: #7

Sp5, did you read my post? I never said that nuclear war was "necessary" or "desirable". Only that the war that will come will not be a "civil war" but a major global conflict, and that this conflict will very possibly (but not necessarily) involve a limited nuclear exchange. Nuclear weapons have already been used once; it is fanciful to imagine that there is some guarantee they will never be used again.

Far from being "a bit of a canard", the technological progress made during major wars is massive and the role of wars in spurring and catalyzing this progress is absolutely unarguable. "Weapons" are not some magical items mysteriously removed in any facet of their development from other machines and devices; indeed, these are the objects that reward most fundamentally brilliant coups of engineering and applied mathematics. The technologies of war extend the senses -- it is no accident that Leonardo, one of the few proper men of genius that existed in the history of mankind, was continually driven to imagine and sketch out war machines -- he understood their eminence in the world of created objects. And of course, the last World War, and the Cold War since then, have entirely driven progress in cryptology which underlies the most important developments in modern computing -- and this, too, will be accelerated by the unimaginable levels of cryptological warfare that will accompany the next global conflict.

Finally, it is of course true that the personal experience of war is not only "not pleasant" but unspeakably brutal and terrible. What does that have to do with the role that war plays in the progress of mankind? Nothing. It is crucial to distinguish the subjective aspects of the experience of a phenomenon from its point and its objective consequences; otherwise one's thinking becomes as muddled as that of a female or a gay academic who thinks that wars are "bad" and "irrational" and will therefore never really happen again.

Remember, finally, that our real war is not with each other; it is with the world of dead and obdurate materials that surround us and eventually take us back into their silence and darkness. That is the fundamental reason why we as a species periodically submit ourselves to the terrible conditions of sustained combat pressure, as we seek the deadly concentration that enables the bouts of explosive progress which we need to continue to advance upon our true and implacable enemy.

Post: #8

(06-14-2014 03:15 PM)MattW Wrote:  Tyler Cowen had a piece in the NYTimes with similar ideas yesterday: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot...rowth.html

Quote:Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.

It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.

I did not see the piece. It is good that he acknowledges these rather obvious points, and of course all ideas of "secular stagnation" will indeed be routed by the spurt of explosive population growth, innovation and rebuilding that will come in the wake of a major war. It is unsurprising, however, that he concludes the piece with the following muddled passages:

Quote:But here is the catch: Whatever the economic benefits of potential conflict might have been, the calculus is different today. Technologies have become much more destructive, and so a large-scale war would be a bigger disaster than before. That makes many wars less likely, which is a good thing, but it also makes economic stagnation easier to countenance.

There is a more optimistic read to all this than may first appear. Arguably the contemporary world is trading some growth in material living standards for peace — a relative paucity of war deaths and injuries, even with a kind of associated laziness.

No such "trade-off" is in the cards. The extrapolation of the current extended peacetime into the indefinite future is laughable and utterly unjustified. The ferment that will eventually lead to a major war can already be sensed in the air -- though it may take a long while yet before the first shots are fired.

Post: #9

I'm glad I could help get this discussion going. There's alot I'd like to mention that I can't get to today. We're touching on something that, I believe, is the crux of the issues of our time.

Post: #10

Lots of people who have tasted it have no particular problem with war, guys. I know plenty of combat veterans who saw significant action who would go back in a heartbeat. I don't know if I would at this point, but for years afterward I missed it. I considered becoming a PMC, I thought about the French Foreign Legion, and on several occasions I almost reenlisted with the intention of becoming an 18D. I can't really explain why I missed it, but I can say my time in Iraq was absolutely my best experience in the army. At the end of my tour I didn't want to leave; if the following unit wasn't obviously a piece of shit, there's a very good chance I would've extended to stay in Iraq.

Just saying, just because you saw war and don't crave it doesn't mean you speak for everyone.

Post: #11

(06-14-2014 02:58 PM)FilipSRB Wrote:  I completely share Lizard's point of view, the only diference is the tehnicalities. The way I see it, it is much more likely that the next major conflict will bring the end of USA as a superpower, instead of it being another triumph.

Agreed.

It is men that win wars, brass balls and determination and intelligence, not fancy toys. And not only has America neutered its current military men, but it screwed the pooch for future ones as well. In the aggregate, men today are shadows of their former selves. Who will do the fighting?

America - and the West in general with the exception of Germany - has a habit of entering its wars unprepared. In the past it was always able to overcome this because the unpreparedness was at the strategic and tactical levels. The doctrines and TTPs of fighting had simply been forgotten. But the 'raw material' was always there. Men who were determined to do what needed to be done were always there, they simply needed to be molded into fighting shaped. A W.E. Fairbairn or a Rex Applegate (at the tactical level) and a MacArthur or a Patton(at the strategic level) would step up and do the molding.

Who will fight today? Can the emasculated, porn-addicted, social media-obsessed, skinny jean-wearing, men of today summon the inner strength that allowed their grandfathers to storm the beach at Normandy or withstand being shelled for months at Anzio?

I doubt it.

Post: #12

(06-14-2014 03:49 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Lots of people who have tasted it have no particular problem with war, guys. I know plenty of combat veterans who saw significant action who would go back in a heartbeat. I don't know if I would at this point, but for years afterward I missed it. I considered becoming a PMC, I thought about the French Foreign Legion, and on several occasions I almost reenlisted with the intention of becoming an 18D. I can't really explain why I missed it, but I can say my time in Iraq was absolutely my best experience in the army. At the end of my tour I didn't want to leave; if the following unit wasn't obviously a piece of shit, there's a very good chance I would've extended to stay in Iraq.

Just saying, just because you saw war and don't crave it doesn't mean you speak for everyone.

You are right, but only people with a certain personality can thrive in war, and they have always been in the minority.

“Out of every one hundred men, ten shouldn't even be there, eighty are just targets, nine are the real fighters, and we are lucky to have them, for they make the battle. Ah, but the one, one is a warrior, and he will bring the others back. - Heraclitus

Post: #13

(06-14-2014 04:00 PM)The PerSev Wrote:  Who will fight today? Can the emasculated, porn-addicted, social media-obsessed, skinny jean-wearing, men of today summon the inner strength that allowed their grandfathers to storm the beach at Normandy or withstand being shelled for months at Anzio?

I doubt it.

I agree. If a war comes, I'm fucked. I'm 18, so I'm just old enough to be drafted. Seeing as how most of them have no leadership ability, due to years of being told to defer to other people, I'd probably end up appointed as squad leader. I can't imagine shouting "follow me!" to these guys and expecting them to follow me or complete a task under fire.

Post: #14

(06-14-2014 04:00 PM)The PerSev Wrote:  Can the emasculated, porn-addicted, social media-obsessed, skinny jean-wearing, men of today summon the inner strength that allowed their grandfathers to storm the beach at Normandy or withstand being shelled for months at Anzio?

Yeah.

Men are not static or fixed quantities. They appear effeminate, diffuse and out of focus precisely because they are bred in the late stages of the stale peace; they will be transformed by the combat pressure of a major war.

The idea that past generations of men were magically born "tough", "noble" or "ready to fight" is a laughable myth. No one, farmer or faggot, is prepared for war -- but many men will find themselves more than able when the time comes. It's part of the essence of men that we are born to fight and kill -- just because men are doing it now with video games means nothing. Put a real gun in their hands and after 6 weeks of boot camp they will discover their inner killer with stunning regularity.

Our military superiority over the rest of the world is complete and unprecedented, and the American male equipped with the best that technology has to offer is a terrifying killing machine. A Marine or Ranger fighting in Falluja was worth about 100 insurgents by a conservative count. The average dude does not need to get to anywhere near that level to be deadly and effective. American victory in any serious war is not really in doubt, which is the only reason that such a war is not happening right now -- but the appetite for it is too great for it not to happen eventually, and perhaps sooner than one might think.

Post: #15

(06-14-2014 04:50 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  the American male equipped with the best that technology has to offer is a terrifying killing machine.

Yes, indeed.

Post: #16

(06-14-2014 03:49 PM)weambulance Wrote:  Lots of people who have tasted it have no particular problem with war, guys. I know plenty of combat veterans who saw significant action who would go back in a heartbeat. I don't know if I would at this point, but for years afterward I missed it. I considered becoming a PMC, I thought about the French Foreign Legion, and on several occasions I almost reenlisted with the intention of becoming an 18D. I can't really explain why I missed it, but I can say my time in Iraq was absolutely my best experience in the army. At the end of my tour I didn't want to leave; if the following unit wasn't obviously a piece of shit, there's a very good chance I would've extended to stay in Iraq.

Just saying, just because you saw war and don't crave it doesn't mean you speak for everyone.

Can't say I've been to war, but I have lived through times of intense, brutal crisis over the years, and, as hellish as they were to go through, they tested me to a degree that all the white noise of daily life fell away and I knew exactly who I was as a man: strong, disciplined, resourceful, and mentally-unbreakable. The difference between me and a 'survivor' is that my strength doesn't need an audience or celebration. It just is. Good to know.

It's hard to go back to less-demanding living when you've operated on that left of self-clarity. I miss it too.

A older mate of mine has a rule of thumb he uses for choosing guys he wants to associate with: "It's WWII. We're storming a french chateau. I need to make a run for the wall to plant the explosives to breach it. Can I look at the guy in front of me, and trust him to keep his shit together to lay down covering fire as I make a run for it?"

Obviously, all of us would think this guy was up for the task:

Post: #17

(06-14-2014 04:50 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Yeah.

Men are not static or fixed quantities. They appear effeminate, diffuse and out of focus precisely because they are bred in the late stages of the stale peace; they will be transformed by the combat pressure of a major war.

Yes, they will be transformed. Into maggot food.

The notion of the nice suburban kid who is hardened by war into a steely eyed killer is a nice one, but the truth is different. Look at Vietnam. Most of the casualties were kids, and they got it mostly in their first few weeks of service. Why? Because they weren't ready. Because their training didn't prepare them.

A war, a World War no less, doesn't allow for much error. You have to do it right from the start.

The idea that past generations of men were magically born "tough", "noble" or "ready to fight" is a laughable myth.
That's an assertion I didn't make.
But if you don't see why a kid who lived through the great depression would be better prepared for war than a kid who was raised in an 'everyone gets a trophy for participating' environment, I don't know what to tell you.

Quote:Put a real gun in their hands and after 6 weeks of boot camp they will discover their inner killer with stunning regularity.

Again, a romantic notion. Why don't you have a look at Dave Grossman's books on 'killology'. He goes somewhat overboard in his views, but his version is closer to the truth than yours.

The idea that 6 weeks of bootcamp will make you into a hardened killer is... well, I don't want to insult you, but let's just say you don't know what you don't know.

(06-14-2014 04:50 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  Our military superiority over the rest of the world is complete and unprecedented, and the American male equipped with the best that technology has to offer is a terrifying killing machine. A Marine or Ranger fighting in Falluja was worth about 100 insurgents by a conservative count. The average dude does not need to get to anywhere near that level to be deadly and effective. American victory in any serious war is not really in doubt, which is the only reason that such a war is not happening right now -- but the appetite for it is too great for it not to happen eventually, and perhaps sooner than one might think.

Well alrighty then.

I have no interest in getting into a long discussion on America's military prowess because I've had my fill in other places, but it seems to me that you have a bit of an emotional need to be right, and it's preventing you from looking at things objectively.

The military today - outside of the elite SOF units - is maybe in the worst shape it's ever been. Listen to people who actually serve on the ground, not the Pentagon talking heads. If they're being honest they'll confirm what I'm telling you.

Post: #18

(06-14-2014 05:29 PM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Can't say I've been to war, but I have lived through times of intense, brutal crisis over the years, and, as hellish as they were to go through, they tested me to a degree that all the white noise of daily life fell away and I knew exactly who I was as a man: strong, disciplined, resourceful, and mentally-unbreakable. The difference between me and a 'survivor' is that my strength doesn't need an audience or celebration. It just is. Good to know.

It's hard to go back to less-demanding living when you've operated on that left of self-clarity. I miss it too.

Speaking of which, a great book that everyone should read is The Survivor Personality by Al Siebert.

It grants insight into what real 'toughness' is, not the cheap macho swagger that many want to project these days. And while it can't be taught, you can cultivate it within yourself... if you know how.

Post: #19

(06-14-2014 04:00 PM)The PerSev Wrote:  It is men that win wars, brass balls and determination and intelligence, not fancy toys. And not only has America neutered its current military men, but it screwed the pooch for future ones as well. In the aggregate, men today are shadows of their former selves. Who will do the fighting?

Who are you comparing them to? The Chinese?

And those fancy toys provide aerial and naval superiority.

Who knows if the US could "win" a war with a country like China or Russia, but what are we talking when we say the "end of the US as a superpower"?

Something like Vietnam or Iraq where we fuck around for a bit, lose soldiers and resources, and pull out?

Or an actual invasion of the mainland US? And which country do you believe capable of that?

Post: #20

(06-14-2014 05:43 PM)The PerSev Wrote:  But if you don't see why a kid who lived through the great depression would be better prepared for war than a kid who was raised in an 'everyone gets a trophy for participating' environment, I don't know what to tell you.

Actually I'll take the spoiled brat over the depression kid because he is likely to be bigger, stronger, healthier, and not be suffering from the consequences of malnutrition.

One reason Americans have terrified their adversaries in places like the Mideast and the Pacific is simply because they were so much bigger, stronger, and better fed.

Mental toughness can and will be acquired through experience and necessity, especially by young men who are essentially still unformed. Raw physical health is harder to come by.

(06-14-2014 05:43 PM)The PerSev Wrote:  I have no interest in getting into a long discussion on America's military prowess because I've had my fill in other places, but it seems to me that you have a bit of an emotional need to be right, and it's preventing you from looking at things objectively.

I do have an "emotional need" to be right -- not to appear to be right, but to actually be right. Which is why I take the time to think things through clearly.

There is no need to get into a long discussion of America's military prowess, because that is not the main point of this thread, merely a sideline. If your low opinion of the capabilities of the US military is shared by America's enemies, then we will find out soon enough how well it will fare in a major conflict.

Post: #21

I agree that the US military is in rough shape. I got out ~5 years ago and it was headed off the cliff then; by all accounts it's much worse now. There's a reason I end nearly every army story with "don't join the army".

If we were engaged in total war, I expect we'd get bloodied badly at first as the weak links sown throughout our military snapped under pressure. Once we weeded out the worthless, and probably brought a whole bunch of Iraq and Afghanistan vets back into the military, we'd be an incredibly effective fighting force again. I'm only in my late 20s. It will be a long while before our recent combat vets are too old to effectively contribute, even if they're just training cadre.

The draft would be a mistake, IMO. I've said it here before, but there's a world of difference between a volunteer army and a bunch of draftees. I didn't hear about too many guys in my unit freezing when shit hit the fan, or refusing to shoot. Bear in mind my "social circle" in the military was probably 200 guys. The only incident I can recall specifically hearing about was a SSG who froze when another soldier was shot in the face. He just sat there instead of giving aid, so that other soldiers who had other jobs to do like drive the humvee and talk on the radio had to stop and help the wounded guy. It's notable that the SSG in question joined the military before the war started. Guys who were in before the war are completely different from guys who volunteered knowing they would be going to war. When I was in, the break was approximately at the E-5/E-6 line, with some E-6s being cool but 95%+ of E-7+ enlisted being pieces of shit who were in because it was an easy job with decent benefits. Someone like that makes a terrible leader. Officers are a different story but I won't get into that here.

If we had to have a draft, it should be for support jobs only. Leave combat arms up to the volunteers. I'd rather go into battle with a platoon of volunteers than two companies of conscripts, and that's not hyperbole.

As far as the US military being the best in the world, I always thought that was kinda funny when I was in. I mean, holy crap the stories I could tell... If we are the best, what is everyone else like? But the very few times we unleashed more firepower than rifles and machineguns it was extremely impressive and effective. The Iraqis we had as interpreters told us after our first major firefight that involved Bradleys, hellfires from the Kiowas, 40mm grenades, etc that before that they had thought we were pussies because we didn't use much force, but they revised their opinion after seeing us rain hell on the enemy. We turned half a block into slag in 20 minutes in reaction to a complex ambush with just what we had on us, and that was about 5% of what we could do with full air and artillery support.

Post: #22

(06-14-2014 06:23 PM)Enigma Wrote:  Or an actual invasion of the mainland US? And which country do you believe capable of that?

There isn't one. Not without either possessing and using an unheard of weapon, or possessing and using an unheard of method of transporting troops and supplies across an ocean.

Post: #23

Incidentally, for those who want to read a great book about war, skip Grossman's "warrior" cant and read this masterpiece instead:

"With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa", by E. B. Sledge

Post: #24

There might be a war...

Lots of badasses on this forum...

I'll let you guys sign up while I'm in South Thailand.

Peace.

Post: #25

(06-14-2014 06:48 PM)weambulance Wrote:  I agree that the US military is in rough shape. I got out ~5 years ago and it was headed off the cliff then; by all accounts it's much worse now. There's a reason I end nearly every army story with "don't join the army".

If we were engaged in total war, I expect we'd get bloodied badly at first as the weak links sown throughout our military snapped under pressure. Once we weeded out the worthless, and probably brought a whole bunch of Iraq and Afghanistan vets back into the military, we'd be an incredibly effective fighting force again. I'm only in my late 20s. It will be a long while before our recent combat vets are too old to effectively contribute, even if they're just training cadre.

Agreed on all counts -- that is why I noted in the OP that we are likely to suffer initial setbacks before prevailing decisively.

(06-14-2014 06:48 PM)weambulance Wrote:  As far as the US military being the best in the world, I always thought that was kinda funny when I was in. I mean, holy crap the stories I could tell... If we are the best, what is everyone else like? But the very few times we unleashed more firepower than rifles and machineguns it was extremely impressive and effective. The Iraqis we had as interpreters told us after our first major firefight that involved Bradleys, hellfires from the Kiowas, 40mm grenades, etc that before that they had thought we were pussies because we didn't use much force, but they revised their opinion after seeing us rain hell on the enemy. We turned half a block into slag in 20 minutes in reaction to a complex ambush with just what we had on us, and that was about 5% of what we could do with full air and artillery support.

This is what few people seem to be understand. We have fought every conflict since the last World War, Vietnam included, with at least one hand and sometimes both tied behind our back -- because we are powerful enough to show mercy.

If the US is ever provoked to exercise its full power -- and I believe it is likely that it will be -- well...