Comment by hectorr1 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by hectorr1 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The main implication of hyperconnectivity is the breakdown of physical borders as the most meaningful cultural boundaries. It has actually been happening for a while when you consider the rise of air power, ICBMs, broadcast communications, the internet, etc.

The Army is fundamentally a real estate focused organization - their role is to take and hold territory.

The Navy is about slow influence - control of the seas allows you can deploy and retract the threat of physical violence depending on the political situation.

The Air Force is about the ability to deliver devastating violence on space-age timelines. But they still require targets.

My cautiously optimistic view is that these forms of violence become far less relevant when geography is no longer the key dividing line in tribal affiliation. You will see a rise in low level violence, and that will be associated with a decline in the primacy of the nation state. But it will reduce the risk of globally devastating conflict.

> ...when geography is no longer the key dividing line in tribal affiliation. You will see a rise in low level violence, and that will be associated with a decline in the primacy of the nation state. But it will reduce the risk of globally devastating conflict.

Not necessarily. A civil war between new global tribes* would still be a globally devastating conflict.

* not necessarily the same ones everywhere

"The Navy is about slow influence -" ROTFL. The Navy is only of use to intimidate some 3rd tear nations and for "mine is longer than yours"-comparisons.

http://www.johntreed.net/sittingducks.html

BTW, have you heard about the Russian Zircon missiles?

The Navy has the US's most fearsome nuclear weapons.

Ballistic missile submarines are incredible. Each Ohio class has 24 Trident missiles with up to 8 warheads each. That makes each one a bigger nuclear power than everyone except the US, UK, Russia, France, China and Israel.

The Navy's nuclear attack submarines are also fearsome. Much quieter than old nuclear boats, fast and able to be anywhere and fire cruise missiles.

As you point out carriers are now vulnerable. But they can be held out of range and aircraft refueled. They can then deploy aircraft a long way away from them.

That was a fascinating read. I have no military knowledge or experience, so I cannot confidently judge the truthfulness of it, but it sounds logical and was written in a way that kept me engaged.

The Navy is less about slow influence and more about

1. maintaining logistical access for the Army/Marines (aircraft from carriers, surface combatants, and attack submarines)

2. doing the Air Force's job with lower latency where there are insufficient basing opportunities, especially in low-intensity situations (aircraft from carriers and missiles from surface combatants)

3. higher-survivability forces for the Air Force's job in high-intensity global conflicts (ballistic missile submarines)

That "low level violence", within a city (for example) is best fixed by settling the disputes and inequalities which cause it, rather than intervening with force. So my even more optimistic view is to expect spending to shift away from the military and towards reparative institutions (essentially, political ones) and equitable infrastructure.

My hope here is that the strategists will see that the best defense here is “hearts and minds” and a strong bias towards creating a good truth. If defense funding were pushed towards these pursuits, what an amazing world we could build!

Voted down by somebody that didn't see what happened in Iraq I presume.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com