Top
Best
New

Posted by baud147258 5 hours ago

The glass backbone: Why the Army's logistics will break in the next war(mwi.westpoint.edu)
178 points | 216 commentspage 2
wartywhoa23 5 hours ago|
Many complain on negativism in HN comments, but how in the world can a sane person express anything positive when there's a hell-bent will in conjunction with the "next war"?
strictnein 5 hours ago||
Are you under the impression that humanity could reach a state where there is never another major war?

I don't know how one would reach that conclusion, least of all a Major at the nation's leading military educational institute. Nothing "hell-bent" about it.

pjc50 5 hours ago|||
People were starting to think that way at the "end of history" period between the Cold War and 9/11. At that time the major powers were not involved in wars, and it was believed that regional ones could be "solved" like Yugoslavia.

9/11 was a huge success for Bin Laden's goal of restarting a forever war, though.

throw-the-towel 39 seconds ago||
> People were starting to think that way at the "end of history" period between the Cold War and 9/11.

And between WW1 and WW2. And just before WW1, during the Belle Époque. And probably before that, too.

wartywhoa23 5 hours ago|||
Yes, I am. That requires a total reassesment of who the real enemy is, though (hint: psychopaths at power).
AlexCoventry 42 minutes ago|||
How do you reliably prevent a clever psychopath who's set their mind to it from gaining power?
paulluuk 5 hours ago|||
I consider myself an optimist, but given that the US has been in 229 wars over it's 249 years since founding, it seems highly unlikely that there wouldn't be a "next war".
xp84 4 hours ago|||
There’s nothing peculiar about the US, every country or even tribe has fought many wars.
krapp 4 hours ago||
Not every country or tribe has been engaged in near continuous violence for over two centuries. That isn't simply "fighting many wars" it's being "existentially bound to warfare." The US is peculiar. It's the nation born of a continent-wide campaign of genocide and plunder. It's the only Western nation that couldn't give up slavery without a civil war. It's the only nation to wage nuclear war, and did so primarily against civilians. It's (for the time being) the world's only superpower, with a military orders of magnitude larger than any other. It put the right to shoot people into its Constitution because its founders wanted a government that normalized regular revolutionary violence as a civic principle.

The US is weirdly attached to violence and war in ways you only tend to find in modern dictatorships or the empires of old.

shipman05 1 hour ago||
I appreciate this comment, and agree with it in some respects, but some of these specifics are demonstrably false.

> It's the nation born of a continent-wide campaign of genocide and plunder

Hard to see how that description doesn't apply to most of the New World. Mexico and Peru were founded on bones of conquered and plundered empires. First Nations in Canada suffered much the same as their counterparts in the US.

> It's the only Western nation that couldn't give up slavery without a civil war.

I'm not knowledgeable enough to say this is literally false, but the implication that every other nation gave up slavery willingly and without violence certainly is (see Haiti, for a particularly bloody example)

wartywhoa23 5 hours ago|||
My point is that war is the worst thing that humans can engage in, and that the prevailing sentiment is that constant war is an immutable status-quo, and hence it's okay, there's nothing we can do except downvoting those fucking negativists.
eth0up 4 hours ago|||
I think the folks disagreeing with you maybe haven't spent much time in war. Almost certainly some in harsh skirmishes, but I reckon a few Nam, Korea and WWII vets would at least entertain your position on the subject. Pretty much every meta variation of terror has surfaced or has the potential to surface in war. Parts of Ukraine, I think, easily represent hell on Earth, for both sides.

Edit: I will go a bit further..

I consider Military the greatest power on Earth. It's sacred, necessary. But those who abuse its power commit, in my view, the greatest of sins. I don't mean the soldiers who fight, but those making the decisions of who they fight. The soldiers do their job, often willingly. And they are the ones who face the consequences. To betray them by corruption is the ultimate betrayal. War is a power that, I think, should be reserved for situations with no other option. Mercenaries not considered.

abtinf 5 hours ago|||
War is not nearly the worst thing. Not even in the top 10.
wartywhoa23 4 hours ago||
Oh, really? I'd like to see your top 10.
abtinf 4 hours ago||
Things that are worse than war, a wildly incomplete list, in no particular order:

Pogroms; slavery; totalitarian dictatorship; theocracy; intentional mass starvation; mass organ harvesting; mass forced relocation; anarchy; failing to respond to unprovoked violence; restricting freedom instead of defeating the adversary.

malcolmgreaves 2 hours ago||
What do you think happens in war? Clean fighting from side to side?

You really think the massive amounts of death and destruction aren’t top ten? What do you think happens to the local population when an invading force arrives? You should go and read about the rape of Nanking. And just read about what happened in wars before the modern era.

amanaplanacanal 1 hour ago||
Are you suggesting that the country being invaded should roll over instead of fight? Or is it ok with you for them to prosecute a war?
marssaxman 2 hours ago|||
Your concern is reasonable but misdirected. This article is a publication of the "Modern War Institute", a research organization at West Point, the US Army military academy; it is literally their job to anticipate and plan for the next war, whatever it may happen to be. Deciding whether those plans ought to be used is a completely different responsibility.
alansaber 5 hours ago|||
Comparing the negativity of HN to the inevitability IRL warfare is absolutely hilarious, but I take your point
mcphage 5 hours ago||
Ukraine didn't want to go to war, but someone else made that choice for them.
neocodesoftware 3 hours ago||
What’s missing - the cost of armoring and weaponizing logistics. Maybe easier to invent a new “startup” logistics than replace the old - especially when he talks about a new autonomous delivery in kill zones.
red_admiral 4 hours ago||
I would not underestimate the power of a fully mobilized USA. If we really need to, we can do a lot of things that would die to bureaucracy in peacetime - see WWII.
causality0 5 hours ago||
Change is not going to happen until it's forced. The US military was born as a force required to rebuff existential threats. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the gravitational center of the US military has been the profit margins of defense contractors. What creates the greatest profit? Centralization. Why have a dozen logistics centers when you can have one big one? A trillion dollar fighter program more efficiently absorbs tax dollars than half a dozen specialized vehicle programs from mid-sized companies. Why get congress to pay you to make cheap drones when you can get them to pay you to build $4M Patriot missiles? The MBAs have been riding the US military into the dirt for forty years and I don't think it's going to stop any time soon.
AlexCoventry 44 minutes ago||
> Change is not going to happen until it's forced.

Yes, Pearl Harbor was a known vulnerability, prior to the Japanese attack. The US just wasn't ready to take airpower seriously, at that point.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/k5okm8/why_d...

kasey_junk 5 hours ago|||
Isn’t the American military logistics the most decentralized supply chain in the world? Famously (perhaps apocryphal) _every congressional district_ has jobs in the military logistics supply chain.
causality0 5 hours ago|||
It would be decentralized if the same things were being built in different places. The way US government manufacturing is set up is more like taking all your organs out, sticking each of them in a separate room, and piping the blood back and forth. Every item has a mile-long supply chain and attacking any part of it shuts the whole thing down.
Tostino 1 hour ago||||
Decentralization doesn't matter at all if you still have single points of failure everywhere.
snowpid 4 hours ago|||
sorry, but the European defence is more decentralised.
xp84 4 hours ago|||
Why are defense contractors not better investments, then?

https://youtu.be/C2gIId1dpDs

ptmcc 2 hours ago||
They are largely congressional jobs programs, not traditional business investments
bflesch 5 hours ago||
I agree with your point but it's incredibly naive to identify "the MBAs" as scapegoat for this problem.

We're living in times where an evangelical POTUS dislikes the pope, oligarchs talk about the "antichrist", wars are started with reference to "armageddon" [1] to distract from old money power brokers such as Epstein who has esotheric Kaballah symbols on his office walls [2 @14min42sec].

The authoritarians are concluding the democratic experiment because they can't hide their heritage any longer. All hail the King.

[1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/troops-being-told-to-prepare-...

[2] https://www.yahoo.com/news/videos/never-seen-video-shows-eps...

Stevvo 5 hours ago||
A limited view of the threat. All very well worrying about keeping your armored brigade combat team fueled up, but that won't be much use when the same weapons that threaten the logistics have destroyed all the Abrams and Bradleys that use the fuel. The Army is still under the delusion that its possible to win a peer conflict, not having learnt the lesson of the cold war there will be no winners in this hypothetical fight.
moi2388 3 hours ago||
“ In a future peer conflict, the US Army will not be granted a six-month, uncontested build-up phase, nor will it operate under friendly skies.”

Depends how the war starts. Russia? USA somehow attacks? Easily 6 months of buildup in Europe.

China? Again USA somehow attacks? Again buildup in Australia, Japan, Korea.

Also US air power is absolutely supreme. I don’t see how they will be fighting in actually contested skies even only 2 months in.

siriusastrebe 45 minutes ago|
Air power relies on fuel and maintenance and runways. It's not necessary to contest the skies if the adversary can destroy the "tail" that supplies the aircraft.

Stationary bases can easily be targeted globally. The United States has 11 nuclear powered aircraft carriers. We can assume any peer adversary will have knowledge of their approximate whereabouts at all times. It's unclear how they would fare in next generation conflict but we can assume USA's enemies are designing their weapons around taking those carriers down.

The Air Force is currently upgrading many of its aircraft for longer range operations to increase standoff range

lenerdenator 2 hours ago||
The entire body of assumptions that the post-Cold War US military was built on is flawed. China didn't democratize, Russia's oligarchs didn't stop using NATO as their boogeyman, and the world isn't willing to turn dictatorships and ultraconservative theocracies into pariah states.

All of that was assumed to be true. The US would do small police actions here and there with highly-specialized forces. The rules-based system would more-or-less do the rest.

In the meantime we gutted not only the logistics but the manufacturing base needed to feed that system so that we could "cut costs"... which didn't really happen anyways.

We should be throwing people in prison over this.

Laurel1234 10 minutes ago||
> and the world isn't willing to turn dictatorships and ultraconservative theocracies into pariah states.

The US has been foremost among western democracies in backing dictatorships, even genocidal ones.

amanaplanacanal 2 hours ago||
We usually wait for people to break laws and be convicted before we do that.
lenerdenator 1 hour ago||
I'm sure we could find one. It's the military-industrial complex. It exists to facilitate corruption.
preetham_rangu 5 hours ago||
[flagged]
apawloski 4 hours ago|
[dead]
More comments...