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
LC natural response intuition 2
We’ve been working on an intuitive description of the natural response of an LC circuit, and in the last video, we got everything set up. Now we’re ready to close the switch. Let’s close our switch, and now our switch is closed again. What happens? Well,…
Sal Khan's thoughts on mastery learning
This idea of mastery learning was always kind of this gold standard. This was actually as a part of a fellowship I had while I was at MIT called the Eleranta fellowship to make a learning software for students with ADHD. It immediately struck a chord with…
Introduction to Democracy and its broad variations
What we’re going to do in this video is dig a little bit deeper into the notion of democracy. The reason why this is going to be valuable is that it’s going to inform the decisions that the founding fathers had to make when they thought about whether to r…
Analyzing positive and negative intervals of polynomials
So we have a function f of x that’s written as the product of a bunch of first degree expressions. Now, if we obviously could also view this as a polynomial, especially if we expand this all out, it’ll have our more traditional form. But what’s nice about…
Schelling Point: Cooperating Without Communicating
Let’s talk about the shelling point. Shelling point is a game theory concept made famous by Thomas Schelling in the book called “Strategy of Conflict,” which I do recommend reading. It’s about multiplayer games where other people are responding based on w…
The Second Great Awakening - part 3
Okay, so we’ve been talking about the Second Great Awakening and its context in early 19th century America. The Second Great Awakening was this period of religious revival that was kind of at its hot point in 1820 to 1840. In the last couple of videos, we…