War

[cannabineer]

The fact is there is going to be a shortage of western weapons and munitions for awhile to come, years in fact for some weapons and munitions. So it would be reasonable to assume that if sufficient Russian/Soviet equipment is captured and the primary threat is Russia, it would be refurbished and ammo made for it, though plenty for temporary use has been left laying around. I don't believe such a post war program would cost much, but it would help the Ukrainian economy, defense and foreign policy as it relates to Russia. Sticks and stones will do for defense, if that's all your enemy has too, bows and arrows can help too though.

That ignores the larger question.

 

[Roger A. Shrubber]

There is a calculus here that I sum up this way:

is the temporary advantage gained by using weapons whose main feature is a sort of random barbarity
enough to balance the disadvantage to a nation for accepting randomly barbarous weapons as legitimate?

I don’t know. For as long as we have had history, the awfulness of war has had a primary deterrent value. When deterrence failed, the effect on enemy morale has been used as the justification. Strip away the layers, and what is left is our capacity for exultant sadistic rage. Meting out disproportionate payback feels awful good.

I think fighting that last element of the human condition, seeking moral higher ground, has intrinsic value. But the valuation, and the simple math that follows, is pretty far above my pay grade.

the use of drones will dehumanize war, and remove that deterrent, while still getting the poorest and weakest people in the war zone killed, their homes destroyed by collateral damage. soon, we would be nations of middle class and higher people with no poor to speak of, waging a never ending war of drones and remote weapons in an urban hellscape that used to be the neighborhoods of the poor.
attacking resources, capturing resources would be the order of the day, and we would become high tech road warriors, laying siege to each other in a never ending cycle.
war needs to be painful, and bloody, and horrible...or we'll never fucking stop doing it...why cooperate when we can just take what we need? why develop anything but new, more horrible drones?

 

[cannabineer]

the use of drones will dehumanize war, and remove that deterrent, while still getting the poorest and weakest people in the war zone killed, their homes destroyed by collateral damage. soon, we would be nations of middle class and higher people with no poor to speak of, waging a never ending war of drones and remote weapons in an urban hellscape that used to be the neighborhoods of the poor.
attacking resources, capturing resources would be the order of the day, and we would become high tech road warriors, laying siege to each other in a never ending cycle.
war needs to be painful, and bloody, and horrible...or we'll never fucking stop doing it...why cooperate when we can just take what we need? why develop anything but new, more horrible drones?

I do not agree.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

I do not agree.

The larger question is a moral and ethical one beyond the scope of the discussion. Modern weapons are more precise, they are no less horrifying and refurbished Russian artillery can be accurate, if used by properly trained troops. It is the intention, not the technology that is important, it can be used to kill troops in the field or to slaughter civilians and destroy cities.

As for the need of such things, look no further than Vlad, or even Trump, if he were reelected.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

the use of drones will dehumanize war, and remove that deterrent, while still getting the poorest and weakest people in the war zone killed, their homes destroyed by collateral damage. soon, we would be nations of middle class and higher people with no poor to speak of, waging a never ending war of drones and remote weapons in an urban hellscape that used to be the neighborhoods of the poor.
attacking resources, capturing resources would be the order of the day, and we would become high tech road warriors, laying siege to each other in a never ending cycle.
war needs to be painful, and bloody, and horrible...or we'll never fucking stop doing it...why cooperate when we can just take what we need? why develop anything but new, more horrible drones?

As General Lee said, "It is good that war is so terrible, for men would grow to love it too much." That's what sports are for!

 

[schuylaar]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1570161875362652160

Putin said he would change the world- who knew how mentally ill he really is/was.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

the use of drones will dehumanize war, and remove that deterrent, while still getting the poorest and weakest people in the war zone killed, their homes destroyed by collateral damage. soon, we would be nations of middle class and higher people with no poor to speak of, waging a never ending war of drones and remote weapons in an urban hellscape that used to be the neighborhoods of the poor.
attacking resources, capturing resources would be the order of the day, and we would become high tech road warriors, laying siege to each other in a never ending cycle.
war needs to be painful, and bloody, and horrible...or we'll never fucking stop doing it...why cooperate when we can just take what we need? why develop anything but new, more horrible drones?

The US military had problems with PTSD among drone pilots stationed in Florida, who were killing people on the other side of the planet via satellite. Like here, things can reach out and touch you or jerk your chain in those situations too, often it is seeing friends die that induces the most trauma.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

Putin said he would change the world- who knew how mentally ill he really is/was.

Oh he did that, just not in the way he envisioned! The same goes for Trump.

 

[cannabineer]

The larger question is a moral and ethical one beyond the scope of the discussion. Modern weapons are more precise, they are no less horrifying and refurbished Russian artillery can be accurate, if used by properly trained troops. It is the intention, not the technology that is important, it can be used to kill troops in the field or to slaughter civilians and destroy cities.

As for the need of such things, look no further than Vlad, or even Trump, if he were reelected.

To the bolded: that is an odd position to take. The use of the weapons under discussion is central to the topic.

Smart weapons are intrinsically less awful than the staples of the previous century. Much less collateral damage and harm.

Finally, your last point is not clear. Please unpack: especially how having an autocrat legitimizes using weapons whose lasting capacity is to inflict terror.

 

[ANC]

Even 20,000 troops are not a lot for a country of over 40 million to lose in a war, considering the stakes and it's nature. I say this to illustrate how long Ukraine could fight for, if supported. So far they have an estimated 10,000 dead and by the time it's over it could be 20,000 and a couple of times that with life altering physical wounds. I think this war might produce less PTSD among the Ukrainian troops than would be expected, the cause they are fighting for, high morale and social support could make a difference. Every loss is an unnecessary tragedy though and not just for the Ukrainians.

So far civilian deaths in Ukraine have been much lower than initially expected and are reported to be well under 10,000, many people simply became refugees, another tragedy.

View attachment 5198024

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1570098047916408834

Total number of soldiers and mercenaries fielded under the Russian side is estimated at about 500 000.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

To the bolded: that is an odd position to take. The use of the weapons under discussion is central to the topic.

Smart weapons are intrinsically less awful than the staples of the previous century. Much less collateral damage and harm.

Finally, your last point is not clear. Please unpack: especially how having an autocrat legitimizes using weapons whose lasting capacity is to inflict terror.

As I summed it up, intention is everything and while precision weapons are important in some conflicts, they are less so in this one, they are good enough for their intended purpose on the battlefield, as the pounding the Ukrainians took can attest to. In this particular conflict the use of these weapons by the Ukrainians or others is not a moral or ethical issue. The usage of any weapon system, modern or obsolete by the Russians is however, when used against civilians as they have been. Modern arms are no more humane, just more accurate and take less of a toll on the innocent, if that is the intention.

 

[cannabineer]

As I summed it up, intention is everything and while precision weapons are important in some conflicts, they are less so in this one, they are good enough for their intended purpose on the battlefield, as the pounding the Ukrainians took can attest to. In this particular conflict the use of these weapons by the Ukrainians or others is not a moral or ethical issue. The usage of any weapon system, modern or obsolete by the Russians is however, when used against civilians as they have been. Modern arms are no more humane, just more accurate and take less of a toll on the innocent, if that is the intention.

The bolded is false.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

To the bolded: that is an odd position to take. The use of the weapons under discussion is central to the topic.

Smart weapons are intrinsically less awful than the staples of the previous century. Much less collateral damage and harm.

Finally, your last point is not clear. Please unpack: especially how having an autocrat legitimizes using weapons whose lasting capacity is to inflict terror.

As for my last point, many serious wars are started by antisocial personalities who attain political power, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, Pol pot, Putin, Trump etc, the list is endless. Some conflicts are about land and resources however, such as in Israel, both sides know what they want and it is tangible. Some are wars of national independence like Vietnam, the American revolution and Ukraine. But the root cause of most modern conflicts are an antisocial personality who rises to power and who uses the usual methods. These days they face a lot of international head wind, as Putin is finding out. Information technology makes things happen faster, including politics, Putin is finding that out too, as are the republicans apparently.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

The bolded is false.

It is if intention is important, the target makes all the difference and using these weapons on the battlefield is different than using them to destroy cities. Sure accuracy is desirable, but in this war, right now, pragmatism is more important than ethical theory.

 

[cannabineer]

As for my last point, many serious wars are started by antisocial personalities who attain political power, Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, Pol pot, Putin, Trump etc, the list is endless. Some conflicts are about land and resources however, such as in Israel, both sides know what they want and it is tangible. Some are wars of national independence like Vietnam, the American revolution and Ukraine. But the root cause of most modern conflicts are an antisocial personality who rises to power and who uses the usual methods. These days they face a lot of international head wind, as Putin is finding out. Information technology makes things happen faster, including politics, Putin is finding that out too, as are the republicans apparently.

Square that with the aversion to war one of your two named autocrats displayed.

 

[cannabineer]

It is if intention is important, the target makes all the difference and using these weapons on the battlefield is different than using them to destroy cities. Sure accuracy is desirable, but in this war, right now, pragmatism is more important than ethical theory.

That is false and a bit jesuitical imo.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

Square that with the aversion to war one of your two named autocrats displayed.

They don't always have external ambitions, but having the means makes all the difference, as in Stalin's case. During the war he grew strong, but he was ambitious in the Baltic before the war while he decimated his army's officer corps. As for Trump, he would have gotten around to international adventures and used American troops like Putin is using Russian ones.

 

[DIY-HP-LED]

That is false and a bit jesuitical imo.

I was raised a protestant! Intention determines everything, a doctor can use a knife to save your life, or a murderer can use one to end it, one is a criminal the other gets paid for it.

 

[cannabineer]

They don't always have external ambitions, but having the means makes all the difference, as in Stalin's case. During the war he grew strong, but he was ambitious in the Baltic before the war while he decimated his army's officer corps. As for Trump, he would have gotten around to international adventures and used American troops like Putin is using Russian ones.

in the case of that man, we were spared the finding out. It is plausible that he would have done as you suggest, but not before consolidating power well beyond constitutional limits.

 

[cannabineer]

I was raised a protestant! Intention determines everything, a doctor can use a knife to save your life, or a murderer can use one to end it, one is a criminal the other gets paid for it.

Intention is some but not all. The road to Hell testifies.