Comment by kneebonian | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kneebonian | Hacker News Reader

Here's the thing, a military that isn't regularly exercised quickly falls prey to the iron law of bureaucracy, as Dr. Hugh Nibley once said "Leaders are those who surprise and discomfort the enemy in war time, and rock the boat and upset HQ in peace"

If war isn't regularly and actively being prosecuted the military turns to infighting, the officers that are promoted are promoted because of their ability to suck up and kiss ass, meanwhile the people that get things done, that bruise egos, and deal with things directly end up phased out and pulled down.

Part of the reason WW1 was so horrible wasn't just because of the technological advances, or the environments they fought in but because of how many worthless brass were involved and f**ing things up regularly. Hell France was only saved from falling within a month because their top general went on a spree of firing over half the commanders and replacing them with people that produced results.

In the next substantial military conflict the US faces we will spend a long time losing until we fire most of the people currently in charge and the thinking changes.

As evidence let me point to the continual massive investment into the fighter program. Those advocating the fighter program are the cavalry commanders of the 1910, thinking in an outdated and outmoded way of thinking that they are wedded to, and will continue to rely on and push for despite the fact it is a clearly outdated and obsolete way of thinking.

EDIT:

As noted below Dr. Hugh Nibley was Professor of Ancient Scripture at BYU if you feel that substantially impacts your opinion of this quote.

If experience is exercise, name a more exercised force than the US military.

Any number of war-torn countries' militaries would meet that criterion, from Afghanistan to parts of Africa.

A fair point, and this is one thing we may have on any other country of similar size and standing, but as we've seen with Russia, that only counts if it's been what you've been working for.

Our military is exercised to an extant, but it's also been exercising for fighting asymmetric warfare, and irregular combat, not conventional combat on a battlefield against a comparable enemy. It's like running 3 miles every day in preparation for a marathon, it's something and helps you work out some things, but its going to be very different once the gun fires to start the race.

One of Russia's big issues I've heard is that they command down from above. They do not have a strong force of decision-making NCOs. This seems plausible given their poor and reactive performance in Ukraine.

that's certainly a good explanation for what we see, and I have no counter-evidence, but I'm also suspicious of the matchup with a common cliche/trope: the WWII Nazis and the Imperial Japanese forces were also not able to think for themselves, and how many Star Trek episodes and alien races are foils for the idea that it's the fluid complexity and individualism of "Americans" and "humans" that makes them so adept at succeeding in the shifting tides of battle...

How many of those experienced personnel stick around to pass on their knowledge? Not nearly enough to have an effective military. We'll find out our true readiness when we face a competent enemy.

And who should that be? Certainly not Russia, they're getting their asses handed to them in Ukraine and won't be a threat for decades to come - Germany post 1945 had an immense amount of industry and other production to help us getting back on our feet rather quickly, but Russia doesn't have anything beyond exporting oil and gas.

And not China either, because no matter how unexperienced the US Army is, the Chinese have virtually no experience other than trading shots and fist fights on the Indian border or acting like a school bully in their neighborhood - and most Chinese stuff is based on old Soviet shit (whose "quality" is currently being shown in Ukraine) or stolen Western tech.

> old Soviet shit (whose "quality" is currently being shown in Ukraine)

Both sides in Ukraine rely heavily on Soviet equipment. One of the major problems Russia faces in Ukraine is the highly effective air defense infrastructure the Soviet Union built.

As for China, it has a mixture of heavily upgraded Soviet equipment (e.g., Flankers with modern sensors, electronics and missiles), and its own indigenous designs (for example, it's the only country other than the US to develop and produce a 5th Generation fighter jet). Given China's proven ability to develop high-tech products and manufacture at scale, why would you doubt that it's capable of producing modern military hardware?

It's hard to produce effective military hardware when your customer is a parade-ground military. The incentives don't line up, which is killer even if you have a strong culture of integrity.

> Given China's proven ability to develop high-tech products and manufacture at scale, why would you doubt that it's capable of producing modern military hardware?

Oh, they are certainly capable - but unlike the US, nothing what the Chinese build in terms of heavy equipment has been tested in an actual battle, neither has the logistics of their army or the command structure, both of which Russia sorely lacks in Ukraine. In contrast, the US has all three aspects nailed and refined for decades.

Also... who says that it's not all just a paper tiger? Everyone was scared about the T-14 Armata or a lot of other Russian stuff that was in reality just fraud everywhere along the chain. China suffers just the same problems with endemic corruption and a yes-men attitude as Russia does.

> the US has all three aspects nailed and refined for decades.

The US has plenty of experience, but it's all in fighting opponents who can barely fire back. No one has any idea how the US would fare against a real opponent. Even the shock to the public, which is used to relatively low-casualty colonial wars, would be difficult to gauge.

> China suffers just the same problems with endemic corruption and a yes-men attitude as Russia does.

I don't know if there's much similarity between the China and Russia, given that I only know the culture of one of those countries relatively well. What I will say is that based on my own observations, China is highly competent at pulling off large and complex projects - much more so than the US.

That’s the point: there are no other competent enemies, either in the sense of funding, or in terms of wartime experience. No one else even comes close. It’s possible that China will get there someday, but that’s likely decades and multiple conflicts away.

The soldiers aren't the avatar; they don't keep state after death.

How do you compare the exercise in Vietnam vs the exercise in Afghanistan? Is there a ratio of how badly beaten they are by people shooting back in flip-flops with soviet era AKs?

For context, Hugh Nibley was a prolific apologist for the mainstream Mormon church.

Attack the argument, not the person.

I'm not attacking anything. If anything, I mostly agree with the argument being made. I just think Nibley's prolific work as an apologist is interesting context to his words.

The description is oddly context-free, as if a reader is supposed to know if this other work about a religion was related to the observation about garrison vs field soldiers.

  apologist
  noun
  SYNONYMS: defender, supporter, upholder, advocate, proponent, exponent, propagandist, apostle, champion, backer, promoter, campaigner, spokesman, spokeswoman, spokesperson, speaker, arguer, enthusiast. 
  ANTONYMS critic

An apologist is a defender of a philosophy or religion that proceeds by first taking certain (often unprovable) axioms as true without proof (i.e. worldview), then proceeds to defend it vigorously with a veneer of logic.

One can be an apologist for, say, the axiom of choice (an actual axiom), a Neopagan faith, #metoo, etc., regardless of how much evidence is against or for the worldview based upon the assumptions.

Well Nibley also was part of the 101st Airborne, and stormed Utah beach, was involved in Operation market garden and participated in the Battle of the Bulge so there is that going for him.

I could see this happening in the Russia / Ukraine conflict. Perhaps Russia will improve over time because of this.

Whats a better alternative to the fighter program?

Drones. Sure you can buy a $22 mil next gen stealth fighter to secure air superiority but I can buy 200 drones that cost $2k for 1/100th of the price, launch them from much closer to the battlefield and good luck shooting all of them down to establish your air superiority. Or even better you send in your fancy fighter/bomber combo, I'm going to blanket the effected air with drones programed to move in an erratic and choatic manner and suddenly I just cost you $22 million for something that I paid $100 for.

Remember the Panzer was a better tank than the Sherman, but it didn't matter because the Sherman was cheaper to build and faster to make.

It's about a 1-2 ratio. F-35 costs around $80m and a single predator drone costs around $40m.

That's not even accounting for the fact that Predators aren't able to realistically be used with S-300/S-400 SAMs sitting everywhere. There's a reason you aren't seeing aircraft near the front unless you're talking about helicopters at or below treetop level. Neither side in this conflict has stealth fighters capable of fighting on the front lines.

You should check out the NGAD program. It's exactly what you're talking about.

The problem with drones is that they're easily jammed. Ukraine is lucky that Russia has been so incompetent, but I bet the next major conflict has large scale jamming on just about every frequency.

NGAD strikes a balance between drones and manned aircraft.

I don't really like the WWI cavalry analogy, either. The fighters being used in Ukraine are a far cry from what 5th/6th generation technology can achieve. The gulf war is a better example of what happens when you achieve air superiority. It turns out that's really important in modern warfare.

> The gulf war is a better example of what happens when you achieve air superiority. It turns out that's really important in modern warfare.

Not certain if true, as this has been claimed since LeMay but has not lead to victory since 1945. Iraq was not modern, not antique, maybe vintage is the word for them. Iraq and Afghanistan show that despite air and every other material superiority, the home team advantage is psychologically decisive against a non-genocidal alien force. You might even say that WWII proves the rule in that the US made a genocidal show of force.

Is air dominance helpful? Sure. Is it really important in getting to a victory condition? Jury is AWOL.

You wildly underestimate costs. A F-35 costs 85m-125m. NGAD will likely cost similar and won't be affected by most forms of Jamming, unlike current drones which makes them useless. It's only sheer luck that drones work in ukraine due to the meme levels of shit that is the Russian forces. Drones cost around a quarter or less of fighters normally but can't be flown in contested airspace due to jamming with current technology.

> can't be flown in contested airspace due to jamming with current technology

Can't be flown or can't be remotely directed?

Who exactly is flying a drone?

Remote personnel with joysticks.

Alternatives would be self flying or pre-programmed flights.

Jamming seems to something to work around in the latter two use cases.

Both of those require signals to the drone, hard to do if the area is being jammed.

Self flying and preprogrammed do not need signals to the drone. Perhaps you read the comment strand too quickly.

If one side has stealth fighters up, good luck to the other side in getting those 200 drones near the battlefield.

The irony of criticizing the F-35 while complaining about armchair generals.

Hi.

I downvoted you because your comment is a casual insult without bringing anything to the discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com