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
6 Buddhist Reasons To Avoid Alcohol
A weird thing about Western society is the collective acceptance of one of the most dangerous drugs: alcohol. Me personally, I have a passive binge drinking, and I’m happy to say that I drink rarely these days, if not at all. For me, drinking was a gatewa…
Gardening in Small Spaces | Live Free or Die: How to Homestead
[Music] So we live on an acre and a half of land, and we have plenty of space to garden. So we can grow all sorts of different things. But even if we had just a teeny tiny yard, we could also grow a garden. And I’m going to show you one way to grow a gard…
Evidence of evolution: embryology | Evolution | Middle school biology | Khan Academy
Do you ever wish that you had a tail? You could swing your way to school, bake pies more efficiently, and carry an umbrella while keeping your hands free. The funny thing is, you did have a tail once, before you were born. Back then, you were an embryo.…
McCulloch v. Maryland | Foundations of American democracy | US government and civics | Khan Academy
Hey, this is Kim from Khan Academy, and today we’re learning about McCulloch versus Maryland, a Supreme Court case decided in 1819 that helped to define the relationship between the federal government and the states. The question at issue in this case wa…
Conditions for confidence intervals worked examples | AP Statistics | Khan Academy
Ali is in charge of the dinner menu for his senior prom, and he wants to use a one sample z interval to estimate what proportion of seniors would order a vegetarian option. He randomly selects 30 of the 150 total seniors and finds that seven of those samp…
Confidence interval for a mean with paired data | AP Statistics | Khan Academy
A group of friends wondered how much faster they could snap their fingers on one hand versus the other hand. Very important question in life! Each person snapped their fingers with their dominant hand for 10 seconds and their non-dominant hand for 10 seco…