yego.me
💡 Stop wasting time. Read Youtube instead of watch. Download Chrome Extension

Technology doesn’t win wars. Why the US pretends it does. | Sean McFate | Big Think


3m read
·Nov 3, 2024

Processing might take a few minutes. Refresh later.

SEAN MCFATE: War is getting sneakier. War is going underground. And we have to go underground with it. We have to fight in the shadows. Otherwise, we will be left behind.

So, for example, you know, in this type of new environment, some of the best weapons do not fire bullets. In the old days, the old rules of war, when the Soviet Union wanted to arrest the West, wanted to sort of freak out NATO, what it would do was hold a huge military exercise on the border of Germany, East and West Germany. 150,000 troops. And NATO and the United States wasn't sure, like, well, is this an exercise or could it be a real invasion? And that would shake things up.

But that's the old days, the innocent days. Today, when Russia wants to shake up Europe, what they do is they weaponize refugees. They deliberately bomb civilian centers in Syria, creating an avalanche of refugees into Europe, which creates Brexit, which creates the rise of right-wing national parties that want to disembowel the European Union. The Soviets wish they could do that, if they could only have done that.

So I think this is an example of how wars of the future will be fought. They will not even look like wars to the traditional mind, and a few heads will explode in the Pentagon. Sure. When people think of the threats that face our country today, they think of Russia, China, terrorism, pandemics, et cetera. But those are not the worst problems.

The worst threat is systemic. It's growing entropy in the global system. It's persistent conflict. It's something I call durable disorder. What durable disorder is and what durable disorder means is that we have an emerging global system that can contain problems but not solve them. Meanwhile, we have this post-1945 idea of a liberal world order that the US sort of champions and rules upon, but that world has gone away, and we're not prepared for what follows next.

For the United States, the last successful war was World War II. We won decisively in 1945. The world ran on vacuum tubes, yet the idea of conventional war is still the strategic paradigm of which the Pentagon, the military, the modern national security establishment is built around, and this is dangerously wrong.

When you ask people to think about the future of war, often what they tell you is something that looks like World War II with better technology. But there is nothing more unconventional today than conventional war. Nobody fights this way. When people think about what warfare is, they think of John Wayne or Saving Private Ryan. They think of killing more enemies, taking more territory, and flying your flag over the enemy's capital. They think of Berlin in '45. They think of Japan's surrender on the battleship, the USS Missouri.

And then they wonder why there's not a USS Missouri moment against the Taliban, against ISIS. The reason is nobody fights this way of war anymore, yet we are mired in the past. And as long as we're mired in the past, and war has moved on, we will be left behind.

And even an undefeated. So if there's one maxim for the last 70 years of war, it's that technology is not decisive in warfare. If you look at big, powerful, technologically advanced militaries go up against low-level Luddites who confound them. You know, whether it's the Mujahideen in Afghanistan against the Soviets or America fighting in Vietnam against the North Vietnamese, et cetera, Iraq and Afghanistan, this is, without question, the one thing we should all agree on.

Yet for some reason, people think we need to double down and invest in technology for warfare. In fact, for most people, they can't even imagine the future of war without high tech. Such is the bias that we have for it. But this is the definition of insanity, doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different result.

For example, take the F-35 fighter jet. You know, we have not fought, we have not had a strategic dogfight since the Korean War. So why do we need more fighter jets? I do not know. We already have the best fighter jets. And the F-16, the F-15, and...

More Articles

View All
A Holiday Present from Lamorne Morris | Valley of the Boom
Hello! I was just enjoying a warm beverage right here beside this crackling fire, you know, holiday stuff to celebrate the season. National Geographic, and I come bearing gifts. Watch the first two episodes of “Valley of the Boom” for free on demand and …
Interpreting bar graphs (colors) | Math | 3rd grade | Khan Academy
Chelsey asks 600 people at her school their favorite color and graphs the results. Some colors are not on Chelsea’s graph. How many people chose colors other than those on Chelsea’s graph? So, here’s Chelsea’s graph: she made a bar graph and she listed s…
Kamala’s $25K Homebuyers Tax Credit Will Backfire
Kevin, look, I feel deeply for Jenzy. I can’t imagine being a first-time home buyer and you’re staring down, you know, million-dollar homes with huge interest rates. I mean, is that the plan that will work? I got two Gen Z in my family right now, and the…
Deploying the Depth Finder | Big Fish, Texas
Hey guys, now let’s get up and go. Okay, got to cut some bait out. We’re at the East Butterfly right now; it’s 130 miles from Galveston jetty. We have 13,000 pounds of grouper to catch, and that’s a tall task for anybody. Got to say, I’m very tired. I dr…
Worked example: Balancing a simple redox equation | Chemical reactions | AP Chemistry | Khan Academy
So what we have here is a redox reaction. Things are getting oxidized and reduced; that’s the name, redox. But we want to balance this redox reaction, and when we talk about balancing a redox reaction, we want to make sure we conserve mass and charge on b…
The Lost Forest | Nobel Peace Prize Shorts
[Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] Wow, so look puppy! But can you see? This is where daddy’s going to go, gonna go in, climb this mountain. Yes, my name is Julian Bayliss. I’m a conservation scientist. I’m an ecologist. My job is to try and help conserve…