Flawed Analysis
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Despite the claims of JonKatz, the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan does not disprove the need for infantry. We might not have many ground troops in, but the Northern Alliance has a whole bunch.
What the current conflict does seem to reinforce is that air power vastly increases the effectiveness of infantry. An outnumbered, disorganized force of partisans (the Northern Alliance), was able to establish territorial dominance in a matter of weeks over a mountainous country the size of Texas.
The latter half of the 20th century has demonstrated again and again that air power cannot control territory. The US was unable to drive the Iraqi army out of Kuwait by applied air power - ground forces were required. Air power alone was not sufficient to stop the deployment of troops in the Yugoslav quagmire. The vast Allied bombing runs in Germany during WWII did not significantly affect production - Krupp produced a continually increasing amount of material throughout the war.
Nor does air power do much to break civilian support for the government in power. Iraq is the first counter-example that comes to mind. In Yugoslavia, support for Milosovich actually increased during the course of the campaign. London, Japan and Germany during WWII are also fine examples - with the exception of Fat Man and Little Boy.
The poor bloody infantry isn't going anywhere. It's all very well and good to speculate on drone warfare - but all we have right now is a limited example of a small number of "drones" being used against a technologically disadvantaged opponent.
- Ed Pichon
War is futile?
on
The Drone War
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Actually, I'd say that five thousand years of warfare have demonstrated that war is often an extremely effective course of action. Just a handful off the top of my head - William the Conqueror's conquest of England won him the crown, the Russian expansions of the 18th and 19th centuries, pretty much every single war fought by the Romans, Alexander the Great, the list continues....
The whole premise of Mutually Assured Destruction is to make a full-scale war futile - a distinct departure from prior forms of warfare.
It isn't an issue of sovereignty. If one country does not like another's economic practice, they can put a tax on imports from that country.
There have been numerous occassions when the US and other nations have had trade difficulties (the EU and Japan agricultural import restrictions, etc). The issues generally get worked out through negotiations, and quid-pro-quo taxes.
Personally, I think the Fed is in the right on this one. This is how you go after big-budget piracy. Piracy is a serious problem, and it deprives software publishers serious money - money that is used to pay programmers so they can eat, send their kids to college and all that good stuff.
CD-printers that don't put tracking numbers on the discs are a primary means by which industrial scale piracy takes place. Taking action to prevent that is a reasonable and effective method to stop it. Which translates to cheaper software, fewer copy-protection schemes, and better salaries for more programmers.
Slashdot Mirror
Despite the claims of JonKatz, the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan does not disprove the need for infantry. We might not have many ground troops in, but the Northern Alliance has a whole bunch.
What the current conflict does seem to reinforce is that air power vastly increases the effectiveness of infantry. An outnumbered, disorganized force of partisans (the Northern Alliance), was able to establish territorial dominance in a matter of weeks over a mountainous country the size of Texas.
The latter half of the 20th century has demonstrated again and again that air power cannot control territory. The US was unable to drive the Iraqi army out of Kuwait by applied air power - ground forces were required. Air power alone was not sufficient to stop the deployment of troops in the Yugoslav quagmire. The vast Allied bombing runs in Germany during WWII did not significantly affect production - Krupp produced a continually increasing amount of material throughout the war.
Nor does air power do much to break civilian support for the government in power. Iraq is the first counter-example that comes to mind. In Yugoslavia, support for Milosovich actually increased during the course of the campaign. London, Japan and Germany during WWII are also fine examples - with the exception of Fat Man and Little Boy.
The poor bloody infantry isn't going anywhere. It's all very well and good to speculate on drone warfare - but all we have right now is a limited example of a small number of "drones" being used against a technologically disadvantaged opponent.
- Ed Pichon
Actually, I'd say that five thousand years of warfare have demonstrated that war is often an extremely effective course of action. Just a handful off the top of my head - William the Conqueror's conquest of England won him the crown, the Russian expansions of the 18th and 19th centuries, pretty much every single war fought by the Romans, Alexander the Great, the list continues....
The whole premise of Mutually Assured Destruction is to make a full-scale war futile - a distinct departure from prior forms of warfare.
- Ed Pichon
It isn't an issue of sovereignty. If one country does not like another's economic practice, they can put a tax on imports from that country.
There have been numerous occassions when the US and other nations have had trade difficulties (the EU and Japan agricultural import restrictions, etc). The issues generally get worked out through negotiations, and quid-pro-quo taxes.
Personally, I think the Fed is in the right on this one. This is how you go after big-budget piracy. Piracy is a serious problem, and it deprives software publishers serious money - money that is used to pay programmers so they can eat, send their kids to college and all that good stuff.
CD-printers that don't put tracking numbers on the discs are a primary means by which industrial scale piracy takes place. Taking action to prevent that is a reasonable and effective method to stop it. Which translates to cheaper software, fewer copy-protection schemes, and better salaries for more programmers.
I'm sure someone has posted this already, but these words have been resonating with me especially well today:
"I fear that we have a awakened a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve."
- Admiral Yamamoto.