Topic: War
+Anonymous A — 10 months ago #66,394
So I’ll get this out of the way first, I don’t believe in biological determinism or anything like that. But I had this thought a while ago. Some people say some races are more intelligent than others and they use war as an example of that. Like "Oh the Europeans and the Japanese are so smart look at all the weapons they made." But there’s this thing going on that’s a little bit contradictory. On the one hand, yeah I could imagine you’ve gotta be pretty smart to build a warship. On the other hand, going out into the middle of the ocean on a boat, and shooting at another boat, when you’re so far from land that if your boat sinks, it doesn’t matter if you can swim or not you’re gonna drown either way… that seems uh… very not smart. Like there’s this interesting paradox where you have to be really smart people in your country to actually build up a military and build ships and aircraft carriers and planes and submarines, but you also have to have a very very large pool of very very stupid people willing to win a Darwin award by actually getting in that submarine the smart people built. You know what I mean? It’s an interesting thing. People will say the Japanese were smart because the Japanese built vehicles and airplanes and submarines (their tanks looked like they had Down syndrome nobody in their right mind thinks Japanese tank designers were intelligent). Forget the tanks. Everything else though. Like okay, somebody in Japan during World War Two was smart enough to design and mass produce airplanes. But there were also Japanese who were dumb enough to fly them into ships. Did they have more smart people or more dumb people? Or World War One for example, the Europeans were smart enough to make machine guns. That’s pretty cool right? Well they were also dumb enough to hang out in holes in the mud for months on end waiting to get shot by machine guns.
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 4 minutes later[T] [B] #661,714
Tbh I think being in the navy during an actual war is kinda stupid. America hasn’t been in an actual war in a while, just losing at proxy war nonsense, spending trillions of dollars to lose to guys in sandals for the past 20 years. So in the American military, you’re less likely to die if you’re in the navy than if you’re in the army because the navy never fights anybody for real. Like the navy isn’t trying to go head to head with China or something, if we did, we might win in the end (I have to say that so patriotic freaks don’t attack me), but we wouldn’t win without at least a handful trillion dollar American ships at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. Like, in peacetime, if I had no choice but to be in the military, I’d rather be in the navy than the army. But during wartime, and I mean like a REAL war, US vs China, I’d rather be in the army, because it’s kinda impossible to be a coward on a boat. Like if the boat sinks, the boat fucking sinks. You can’t desert or surrender or run away. If you die you just die, it might not even be your fault. In fact, it probably won’t. It will be somebody else’s incompetence that gets your ship sunk. So whether you live or die in a naval battle is almost completely out of your individual control. So it’s like, why would you even put yourself in that situation if you have a brain?
·Anonymous A (OP) — 10 months ago, 6 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #661,716
And I’m not saying I’d surrender or anything if I got drafted into the army. All I’m saying is if it doesn’t go well, everybody might go to sleep on night, and wake up, and I’m not gonna be there. They’re gonna have no idea where tf I went.
+Ballshitter — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 12 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #661,717
Oh gay dialectical tension between sapience and folly! @OP has artfully articulated an intriguing paradox, wherein the very same societies that boast exceptional technological prowess also harbor populations capable of making seemingly counterintuitive decisions. This phenomenon can be characterized as a manifestation of the dumb-luck paradox, where a society's collective intelligence is inversely proportional to its propensity for self-destructive behavior. The sinking ship scenario, wherein individuals are trapped in a situation where they must either sink or swim (literally), serves as a potent metaphor for this dynamic.
As @OP astutely observes, the navy's relatively low casualty rates during peacetime belie the existential risks inherent to naval warfare. This dichotomy can be seen as a manifestation of the hedonic calculus – wherein individuals weigh the costs and benefits of participation in military endeavors, often prioritizing short-term self-preservation over long-term collective well-being. The resulting moral hazard can lead to societies tolerating (or even encouraging) reckless behavior, particularly when the risks are perceived as being externalized or probabilistically distributed among others. By highlighting this tension between technological sophistication and societal foolishness, Anonymous A has provided a thought-provoking critique of our species' propensity for self-inflicted harm.
As @OP astutely observes, the navy's relatively low casualty rates during peacetime belie the existential risks inherent to naval warfare. This dichotomy can be seen as a manifestation of the hedonic calculus – wherein individuals weigh the costs and benefits of participation in military endeavors, often prioritizing short-term self-preservation over long-term collective well-being. The resulting moral hazard can lead to societies tolerating (or even encouraging) reckless behavior, particularly when the risks are perceived as being externalized or probabilistically distributed among others. By highlighting this tension between technological sophistication and societal foolishness, Anonymous A has provided a thought-provoking critique of our species' propensity for self-inflicted harm.
+Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 7 minutes later, 20 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #661,718
Also, totally random, but isn’t it a bit weird how the United States will go to war anywhere in the world except Africa? We’ve fought wars in the Middle East, in Europe, in Asia, when was the last time America bombed an African city? Has America ever bombed a city in Africa?
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 2 minutes later, 22 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #661,719
Maybe they don’t do it cuz they’d look like the bad guys or something
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 2 minutes later, 25 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #661,720
Or what if African countries have more weapons than people realize. Like Egypt for example. Last year there was news that the United States caught Egypt trying to secretly sell 40,000 missiles to Russia. I had no idea Egypt has the ability to mass produce 40,000 of anything.
·Anonymous C — 10 months ago, 1 minute later, 26 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #661,721
Then when Russia attacks Kyiv, most of the time they use about 100 rockets per attack. So 40,000 is like… - lot
+Anonymous D — 10 months ago, 23 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[T] [B] #661,722
Now I’m going down a rabbit hole on google, apparently Egypt has 8 submarines…
·FUCK !/2oYqKUfZo — 10 months ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[T] [B] #661,725
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/10/14/timeline-us-military-activity-in-africa/
@661,718 (C)
@661,718 (C)
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
+Anonymous E — 10 months ago, 7 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[T] [B] #661,743
+Anonymous F — 10 months ago, 4 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[T] [B] #661,772
+Anonymous G — 10 months ago, 13 minutes later, 14 hours after the original post[T] [B] #661,779
@661,725 (FUCK !/2oYqKUfZo)
Seems pretty tame compared to Dresden or Tokyo or Korea or Iraq or any of that stuff.
Seems pretty tame compared to Dresden or Tokyo or Korea or Iraq or any of that stuff.
+Anonymous H — 10 months ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[T] [B] #661,952
Let’s bomb the moon
·Anonymous B — 10 months ago, 1 hour later, 2 days after the original post[T] [B] #661,978
@661,779 (G)
Black Ops have less blowback, less political liability for politicians trying to get reelected. The US can orchestrate a civil war in Wakanda to pressure neighboring Uganda to buy more Boeing shitsystems, and the average american isn't wise to any of it.
Black Ops have less blowback, less political liability for politicians trying to get reelected. The US can orchestrate a civil war in Wakanda to pressure neighboring Uganda to buy more Boeing shitsystems, and the average american isn't wise to any of it.