Something I’ve wondered throughout the conflict, when and why did the US shift to a focus of techno-supremacy?
Seemingly, our strategy in the WWII was to invest in technology where possible but at the same time throwing many trucks and jeeps and puny Sherman tanks and guns and bandages and bullets and beans at the problem as possible.
Whereas in modern America we seem so much a “wonder weapons” mindset? That seems a poor posture in light of the article, all those expensive weapons will become a burden to protect or just outright destroyed.
Because 1) WWII was more of a total war scenario for the US, where a country is dedicating as much resources as possible to win (US is not doing this for Ukraine), and 2) developing technological supremacy takes lots of time, and can't be rushed, so it must be done ahead of time (and continue in peace time to maintain supremacy).
I would also add that after Vietnam war America became more reluctant to put Americans in harm’s way. Is almost impossible politically to institute military draft in America: USA did not do it when it was fighting two wars at the same time (Afghanistan and Iraq).
This helps explain at least partially why America is so keen on military tech.
I would also add to that the public perception that a wonder weapon (nuclear bombs) ended WWII, despite the fact it was only one of multiple more mundane factors that essentially guaranteed an Allied victory (and that's only counting the Pacific, in the European theater the "Wunderwaffe" lost the war)
The U.S. has not been providing wonder weapons to Ukraine. It has been providing bullets, artillery shells, and Bradley fighting vehicles(which are pretty amazing, but are not new tech).
I would agree that the military like their new toys, like the f-35 fiasco.
> why did the US shift to a focus of techno-supremacy?
In theory, we (the USA) can develop the tech during peace time and ramp up production during war time.
The problem is that during small brushfire wars, some of our less useful politicians decided to spend huge sums to avoid a few civilian casualties and even fewer US casualties. The more correct path would gave been to consider what weapons we would want to mass produce during a war that threatened our survival and take the opportunity to field test those weapons, not $100,000 artillery shells.
The end of citizen-soldiers, i.e., the end of the conscript military. That forces literally everything else.
The problem now - that no one wants to talk about - is that the gap between conscript-accessible "consumer" technology and current Pentagon wunderwaffe is growing distressingly thin. So, not surprisingly, people are starting to ask WHY a GPS chip costs as much as a house in Kansas.
Oh, I know, I know. "They got amazing stuff that's just, like, light-years beyond anything but they can't show YOU". Uh huh. Yeah, my dad knows kung fu, too.
For what it's worth, the end of conscription was a mistake. You don't want armed forces composed of 100% full timers, it's bad for your civilization, as a rule. Something like a mandatory youth civil service - say, three years in military, five years otherwise - would be a fantastic thing in today's post-ZIRP transition.
I agree. Citizens will think more than twice about supporting invading another country if they might end up having to personally be on the ground in a kill zone.
Which is why I believe that people supporting a war should be the ones actually fighting it.
It's not as easy to convince Americans to throw their bodies into the meatgrinder to slaughter brown people for the sake of Raytheon and the almight petrodollar as it was to convince their grandparents to fight the Nazis. People are aware that war is a racket and the American military industrial complex aids and abets terror, suffering and genocide around the world, and it isn't worth having that blood on your hands and risking your life and mental health just to help with school loans.
So now we drone strike weddings for the sake of Raytheon and the almighty petrodollar and everyone is happy. Except the students who still have to pay their loans. And the brown people. But I guess you can't please everyone.
Seemingly, our strategy in the WWII was to invest in technology where possible but at the same time throwing many trucks and jeeps and puny Sherman tanks and guns and bandages and bullets and beans at the problem as possible.
Whereas in modern America we seem so much a “wonder weapons” mindset? That seems a poor posture in light of the article, all those expensive weapons will become a burden to protect or just outright destroyed.