It's interesting to see the US still investing billions in maintaining their military supremacy, while its adversaries have been fighting a much cheaper and more effective warfare of information for decades now. The effects are becoming increasingly apparent in the political and social instability we're seeing in western countries.
All the fancy planes and bombs can't save you from your society and government collapsing from the inside out, amid the confusion of not knowing who the real enemy is. The crazy thing is that the US built the perfect weapons (social media) and made them available to its enemies to use as they please, and it still can't figure out ways to stop it.
American society is not “collapsing.” Compared to the civil rights era, the past few decades have been a blip.
What you’re seeing is American society dealing with the fallout of a new gilded age and a minor political realignment - something that has happened before, and will happen again.
We’re still spending money on military supremacy because at the end of the day, only boots on the ground can control territory and every one of our adversaries knows it. That’s why they’re using the information warfare tactics to begin with.
> Compared to the civil rights era, the past few decades have been a blip.
The difference is that in no moment in history have foreign agents been able to influence the psychology of US citizens as much as in the past 20 years. Considering the effectiveness of information warfare, the link between the appearance of these weapons and the effects we would expect to see, and are indeed seeing now, a generation later, is pretty clear to an outsider.
While you are still in disbelief that anything nefarious is happening, and can be in outright denial and even label those who mention this possibility as xenophobic, you will continue to see the progressive destabilization of your system. This is the way information warfare works.
Boots on the ground won't protect you from an invisible enemy.
It strikes me that US DARPA has a weird position where the more military advantage can come from concentrated high investments then the US+allies/beneficiaries win. (Ie fewer expensive toys should win against many cheap toys)
If Mil technology is too cheap then US advantage is much lower.
So part of that is just keeping SOTA moving quickly. But also centrally-deployed tech having outsized longevity (things like satellite deployment or AI or the anti-missile battery-type stuff).
> If Mil technology is too cheap then US advantage is much lower.
Very true. I played with submitting grants for DARPA funding in the late 1990's. C4I and Network-Centric Warfare were big things. I predicted (almost) everything I've seen being used in Ukraine. I stopped when I realized they only wanted things that gave them a competitive advantage with a moat. (That's they way we phrase it in 2024, not what I would have said at the time.) They wanted things that were extremely expensive to make that would be impossible of extremely difficult for our adversaries to counter or replicate. My designs for cheap weapons anyone could build with parts from eBay and hobby stores were not anything they wanted anyone building.
While I knew people getting funding for submarine detection and other similar military specific techs, I was funded for pure networking research. They fund a lot of areas, often very much in the pure science (particularly computer science) end of the spectrum.
It's interesting to me how the article mentions the large payload requirement, then the only example of what that payload _could_ be is reconnaissance.
I always find it interesting how and when people or groups emphasize or de-emphasize the "death and destruction" aspect of military equipment
Reconnaissance is a prominent role but is hardly the only thing that these could be used for. What exactly is possible is going to vary a lot between designs but with the right design you can do electronic warfare, acting as a communications node, submarine hunting with sonobuoys, light strike using small precision munitions, light logistics for when someone needs literally 1 or 2 specific parts right this instant, and many other things.
Propeller-driven tail-sitters were ready to be the next generation of military carrier-based aircraft after WW2, but no pilot could safely land them. UAVs do not need pilots to land them; their sensors can point any direction.
The MIC is surprisingly fragile when it comes to longterm stress to the economic system keeping it alive. So important is not how "advanced" a drone is, but how cheap and easy it can be assembled and supplied long after all supply chains collapse. He whos garbage air force circles the wasteland long after all opposition perished we shall crown victor.
The point of war is still to hurt the enemy into submission. Nuclear weapons do war without the need for young soldiers, but that doesn't mean no one gets hurt. They just skip the battlefield stage.
We're merely replacing nukes with murder drone clouds.
Nukes feel more impersonal and the quick death seems merciful compared to being chased around a tree. But the sheer magnitude of the destruction of nukes still has me preferring murder done clouds to nukes.
I find nukes are preferable because it's possible to have survivors, and their bluntness discourages use. Drones preserve infrastructure and resources; the Nazis would have loved this for their "living space" plans.
Nukes are far bigger now and there are cluster warheads which enable carpet nuking which would not leave survivors.
They have dial a yield warheads especially designed to reduce bluntness and enable / encourage tactical use.
Then there is neutron bombs that are designed to focus on killing the people and leaving the infrastructure.
It used to be presumed that any real conflict would start out with nuclear weapons and for now that is unthinkable. I hope it stays that way but there is no divine reason for it to. Just traditions and norms that are easily swept away. I remember a time, not that long ago, when arming drones with weapons was unthinkable. Then we did it and now it’s being done to us. I worry that the ‘unthinkable’ nature of nukes is being used to push red lines as far as possible. The same way the unthinkable systemic crash of the housing market enabled the very leverage that caused it. The same logic of ‘Russia will not use nukes because they have not yet used nukes’ which elides the fact that there is always a first time. And like weaponized drones, once it starts it’s really hard to stop.
> I worry that the ‘unthinkable’ nature of nukes is being used to push red lines as far as possible.
That's kinda the point. The US has been dedicated to strategic arms reduction treaties for decades, with the express intent of limiting a missile-gap mentality from taking over again. In particular, the only real reason the United States can muster for justifying nuclear weapons is retaliatory strikes; there's very little practical use for them besides saber-rattling, because once you press the big red button every single country is going to consider you the escalating party.
Both the United States and Russia are replete with tactical standoff strike weaponry that is non-nuclear and well-suited for the kind of conflict they want to fight. Nuking targets in Ukraine would not only be unnecessary, but it would annihilate Putin's cover of territorial aggression and almost certainly qualify as inhumane and disproportionate escalation. NATO would have full casus belli on Russia and no "red line" threats could stop the retaliatory strikes on their silos and airbases.
I think both of you have lost the script on what a nuclear strike actually represents, in international realpolitik. Whatever megaton you dial, nukes are a red flag will push every ally and enemy you have to the brink. If you lack popular support on the global stage (like Russia), there's no guarantee you'll survive a second-strike attack long enough to get what you wanted. Putin specifically despises NATO because it guarantees Russia will be crippled in the event they cross the nuclear boundary.
I think you're thinking of the world as it is today, not as it would be right before a nuclear exchange. I'm thinking of a hypothetical future that is not as unlikely as I would like for it to be. If there is a great power conflict then the presumed loser of that war is likely to go nuclear. We got lucky with the peaceful dissolution of the USSR, we should not expect to get that lucky again. So long as Russia has the advantage in the Ukraine / Russia war I don't see them using nukes for the reasons you mentioned.
It feels like to me that the US is teetering on the precipice of an implosion and for now it is in the interests of the adversaries to take a wait and see approach.
Realpolitik is the politics of practical circumstances, sure if Russia launches one nuke the blowback would be immense and intolerable, but if Russia and China launch enough nukes to go scorched earth then the remaining countries will be figuring out how to best to survive regardless of prior alliances.
If we presume that the loser of a great power conflict goes nuclear, they realistically have two options;
1) Go weapons-empty, launching every weapon you have at population centers intended to terrorize the world and induce a nuclear holocaust at the expense of guaranteeing the persecution of your nation for hundreds of years to come.
2) Launch a warning strike, at a tactical non-populated target, and hold the rest of the world in "nuclear blackmail" under the assumption/hope that nobody will depose you before your demands are met.
What would Russia realistically choose? Option 1 is unthinkable; there's no reason to "burn them all" unless Moscow perceives hopeless conditions. At that point it's doubtful their chain-of-command would last long enough to get bombers off the ground; they are surrounded by adversaries that are explicitly armed with the capacity to disable them. It would be a last-ditch effort, would only detonate a fraction of the stockpiled warheads, and even those aren't guaranteed to make it. And afterwards, Russia is damned for eternity as a nation. You cannot discuss the possibility of an all-out nuclear attack without also considering the second-strike aftermath it would warrant.
Option 2 is realistic, but it relies on the rest of the world playing their game. If Russia is postured well, this could be a scary threat. Right now, they have enough morale that these conditions seem feasible (albeit completely stupid). This can only last so long though, and then you either have to dominate the world or lead a de-escalation process that stops people from wanting to stab you in the back. Russia knows they cannot de-escalate, and they lack the power to invade the rest of the world (let alone Ukraine at this rate). A tactical nuclear deployment would just guarantee firmer support of Ukraine.
So again, you really have to ask yourself; what does Russia gain? An Option 1 scorched-earth scenario guarantees their annihilation as a state and military power. Option 2 gives them a brief window of opportunity to make a statement, and then forces them to stand-down to preserve their standing as a non-rogue power. Neither of these are opportunities, so much as they are tradeoffs that end in misery for Russia and their dreams of expansionism. China knows this too; they wouldn't launch their nukes at Russia's behest because unlike Russia they aspire to be seen as a legitimate nuclear superpower. China's nuclear weapons serve a shockingly similar purpose as the United States'.
Russia would like for you to imagine a Tu-160 flying over your house; they spend a lot of money getting people to put that image in your head. That's their whole trick, though. The secret to carrying the proverbial "big stick" is that you have to speak quietly enough for people to think you're responsible with it. Otherwise you're seen as a brute with a club.
My concern isn't from Russian propaganda. Back when I did weapons development I got to see the difference between stated capability and reality, thus I have no faith in the wests missile defence systems. People were ready to believe that a sufficient missile defence would mean that we could brush off a nuclear exchange and because of that the west could risk more aggressive posturing. I see it as dangerous for us to believe our own propaganda.
Russia is in effect a vassal state of China so really we should be talking about what China will do. So from Chinas perspective they have to worry about how the US will behave when they’re forced to relinquishing global dominance. I'm less worried about Russia going nuclear than I am worried about the US going nuclear. Say for example if China sinks a few of US's carriers day one of a conflict over Taiwan with a swarm of drones. Could they bank on the US not going nuclear, if not then Option 1 is no longer unthinkable it is the only option.
> Back when I did weapons development I got to see the difference between stated capability and reality, thus I have no faith in the wests missile defence systems.
We have those at all? Ones that would affect nukes?
I don't think the idea of nuclear missle defense was part of the above scenario or is part of the average person's expectations.
At the time the Kinetic Energy Interceptor (KEI) was expected to work, the plan was to scale that up. The idea is that some sites would be defended even in a saturation attack where it would be unlikely that Russia would devote enough ICBMs to a single target. There have been attempts to restart it with more lasers. Even now it’s seen as a matter of time - believing the hype from Lockheed and Raytheon. I hope it is only hype but maybe enough lasers could work. I would hate to find out it doesn’t work the hard way.
I could tell back then (>20 years ago) that cheap drones were the future but doing a bad job on expensive things provided job security so no one was interested in doing a good job on cheap things. I quickly switched career to big tech.
Some decision makers in the US are oddly ok with getting nuked so long as they can still call it a win, one single American and no Russians. Suburban sprawl was encouraged as diffusion was seen as a survival strategy. Then you have Baptists that see nuclear holocaust as an essential part of the rapture so they can go to heaven without dying and be with their resurrected relatives. A really dangerous belief held by plenty of people in the military.
I’m of the view that it’s only a matter of time before space is militarized, especially if Trump gets elected again. And if we do that then Russia and China will want to do that as well. I am assuming their base on the moon plans are a cover for launch capacity investments to get nukes into space.
People in the military think about the ‘unthinkable’ all of the time. I think the current framing of nuclear exchange as unthinkable is only done as part of the wests propaganda to allow the west to push red lines harder than what would be otherwise permitted.
As per realpolitik, nation states are immensely paranoid and often think if we don’t do X then Y will and with that can justify doing some truly awful things. Dr Strangelove is less of an over the top satire and more of an oddly accurate portrayal. Even the ability for a first strike nuclear attack by a military commander without presidential approval was accurate despite being classified at the time, I wonder if someone leaked the idea to Kubrick as a round about attempt to show the world how nuts it is in an effort to get popular pressure to apply political pressure to fix it. Have they fixed it, I don’t know but either way they would tell us they have and keep the truth classified.
Look, you're illustrating a lot of well-documented concerns with a pretty panicked tone. This discussion has existed for more than a half-century, and it's died down because the first world cannot tolerate these developments. Russia depends on a peaceable status-quo in order to threaten it's neighbors; China relies on good international standing to trade with relevant currency. We discuss the circumstances surrounding nuclear warfare in these terms because it's the only relevant framework for understanding it; the "red lines" don't mean anything without context, no less than China's famous "Final Warning".
You think this framing is only relevant for western interests; you're right. But it's also startlingly realistic, has popular support, and overwhelmingly disadvantages China and Russia. If nuclear blackmail worked, any nuclear power could demand anything; now they have to do the unthinkable. Given that nobody wants to be nuked, this second-strike guillotine has effectively deterred any self-preserving nation from launching an inhumane nuclear strike.
To change the circumstances surrounding this discussion, you need urgent and credible evidence, not frantic refutations and scaremongering. The United States' calm and collected posture towards nuclear deterrence works, and it has extremely effective contingency plans if it ever fails.
> I wonder if someone leaked the idea to Kubrick as a round about attempt to show the world how nuts it is in an effort to get popular pressure to apply political pressure to fix it.
Did it ever cross your mind that people were discussing this concept back in the 1960s too? If you can believe it, there was actually a non-negligible interest in understanding the nuclear chain of command, known by some as "the Cold War".
Russia gave 'final warnings' about invading Ukraine which at the time was considered unthinkable by many because the presumed damage the international community could inflict on Russia would be so great that Russia would have to capitulate. So much so the west felt free to ignore Russia warnings and invite Ukraine into NATO. Now I guess Russia winning that war is the new 'unthinkable' underpinning the rational for Ukraine not accepting proposed peace deals. Honestly, I don't see how Ukraine wins that war so I'm again at odds which is what is considered 'unthinkable'.
Far from being panicked I'm not even worried about a nuclear war - we're far more likely to have a drone war from which the economic damage would be so great the US will not be able to afford to maintain global dominance. The US felt free to give up it's low value manufacturing base and focus on high value manufacturing and financialization so it's rather unfortunate that cheap drones and a large low value manufacturing base will be what wins future conflicts. Look at how much economic damage the Houthis are doing to Israel - we were told Operation Prosperity Guardian would work as the international community would get together and secure shipping. And if the shield didn't work we'd bomb Yemen into submission, like no-one has tried that one before. Clearly neither has worked and Houthi blackmailing is being very effective. Now imagine a world full of state sponsored terrorists doing their own drone blackmailing with conflicting and impossible to meet demands. So much infrastructure which underpins our current standard of living is at risk. It was clear to me >20 years ago that it made no sense shooting down $10K drones with $1M missiles, I wanted to work on drone counter measures but even back then military development is highly politicized, corrupt, and slow that I saw no viable path for such development.
Fair enough, not an official final invitation but an official invitation to increase ties with the intent of there being an official MAP at a later date. In my view that is a distinction without a meaningful difference.
Perhaps you're thinking had there been an official invitation and Ukraine quickly accepted then there wouldn't be a Russia-Ukraine war as they would be covered under article 5. I think it's an open question if the US would declare war on Russia in such an instance. I think the reluctance to allow a quick ascension in the first place is born out of the same reluctance to enter such a war. The US is only as bound by treaties as it wants to be. The US could of course meet the letter of article 5 but not the spirit by providing a token response instead of the total war response people are expecting.
In my view that is a distinction without a meaningful difference.
Completely disagree -- the decision to heed Russia's request and not issue the MAPs to George and Ukraine in 2008 (where the matter has stayed ever since) was an important de-escalatory step and hugely significant. As Putin's sockpuppet Medvedev said at the time: "Reason has prevailed".
The rest of the stuff about what might have happened had they been issued and accepted gets into the realm of hypotheticals, which is not my turf.
It's not. If you can sacrifice just one without a cost to the other, than they will. Witness the US leaving Vietnam and what would have happened if US soldiers were not facing a grueling war. Witness other asymmetric wars such as Iraq (500,000 Iraqi civilians killed and only 5,000 US soldiers) or the genocide in Gaza now (50,000-200,000 killed by Israel).
If one side has the ability to wage war at no human cost, it will mean massive human cost for civilians, as we constantly see.
Advocating for the devil, if it became obvious to the Vietnamese that they couldn't hurt the US, wouldn't they just surrender? I mean, isn't it clear that it was good for Japan to surrender, rather than prolonging the war? Why did surrendering apparently stop being a legitimate solution, and everyone's fighting neverending wars?
The Imperial Japan surrendered before US forces with the hope that they could continue administering their country, but stop the offensive war as part of the axis powers. Vietnamese were fighting against occupation and, if they surrender they could not live in and administer their own native land. The difference is glaring.
What is happening in Gaza does not meet the definition of genocide.
According to the definition for genocide as provided sections (a)-(2) of Article 2 of the Geneva Convention ("acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group") it does. The substantiation for this rests not so much on the numbers killed (though these are also one component), but on the clear and obvious intent to render the Strip uninhabitable -- and to encourage what Israeli politicians are openly and cynically referring to as "voluntary migration".
To intentionally kick an entire population off of their indigenous territory is a means of destroying them as a people, full stop.
Intention is key.
As has been made chillingly clear by major figures in the 37th Government:
“We are imposing a complete siege on Gaza. There will be no electricity, no food, no water, no fuel. Everything will be closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly”
-- Defense Minister Yoav Gallant
We also have Minister Avi Dichter chiming in:
Israeli security cabinet member and Agriculture Minister Avi Dichter (Likud) was asked in a news interview on Saturday whether the images of northern Gaza Strip residents evacuating south on the IDF’s orders are comparable to images of the Nakba. He replied: “We are now rolling out the Gaza Nakba. From an operational point of view, there is no way to wage a war – as the IDF seeks to do in Gaza – with masses between the tanks and the soldiers.”
When asked again whether this was the “Gaza Nakba”, Dichter – a member of the security cabinet and former Shin Bet director – said “Gaza Nakba 2023. That’s how it’ll end.”
This quote file goes on and on and on. It's really screamingly bloody obvious what's happening in Gaza and the West Bank presently.
"Citing international law, Ms. Albanese explained that genocide is defined as a specific set of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group.
“Specifically, Israel has committed three acts of genocide with the requisite intent: causing seriously serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, and imposing measures intended to prevent birth within the group,” she said.
Furthermore, “the genocide in Gaza is the most extreme stage of a long-standing settler colonial process of erasure of the native Palestinians,” she continued. "
Edit0: Feel free to google "Nakba" and search for yourself as well
unmanned machines on the land or in the air, that can decide to kill a human, are one of the legitimate existential fears around AI advances right now. source: G7 white robe guy this week
I had a buddy in 2004 from the sister lab (doing strong AI), who was acquired by one of the big military contractors to implement "ATAK" (automatic target acquire kill). The task was mostly solved, as far as the US was concerned, as collateral (civilian) damage wasn't considered important for the deployment scenarios. (Think: total war.)
Not a very good analogy, we spent thousands of years creating dogs that are very unlikely to attack people. Just imagine the world in which all dogs turn into wolves overnight.
All the fancy planes and bombs can't save you from your society and government collapsing from the inside out, amid the confusion of not knowing who the real enemy is. The crazy thing is that the US built the perfect weapons (social media) and made them available to its enemies to use as they please, and it still can't figure out ways to stop it.