When are we going to recognise that the whole "warrior ethos" bs is just an excuse for when assholes desperately want to cosplay as Rambo?
tumblr
Welcome to /c/tumblr, a place for all your tumblr screenshots and news.
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Must be tumblr related. This one is kind of a given.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
-
No unnecessary negativity. Just because you don't like a thing doesn't mean that you need to spend the entire comment section complaining about said thing. Just downvote and move on.
Sister Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
Amateurs study tactics; professionals study logistics.
"The nation that will insist on drawing a broad line of demarcation between the fighting man and the thinking man is liable to find its fighting done by fools and its thinking done by cowards."
God bless the military-industrial complex 🫡
What does the warrior have that the pencil pusher doesn't? Spirit.
What does the pencil pusher have that the warrior doesn't? Food and ammunition.
And, therefore, spirit.
What does the constipated mathematician do to solve their problems?
They work it out with a pencil.
Robert Evans has said several times in recent episodes of BtB that the mentality of “good at war means good at killing” is demonstrably false. The US and USSR won WWII not by being better killers but by taking and holding territory (and while awful being less awful than the Nazis.) The US has arguably lost all its conflicts since then because they fell in love with the idea that you can bomb or brutalize your way to victory.
but by taking and holding territory (and while awful being less awful than the Nazis.)
It wasn't just a matter of territory or PR. The soviets placed a huge emphasis on logistics, both their own and the enemy's. A typical soviet operation was to attack with a first wave to find a breach, then send a fresh second wave into the breach to cause as much damage as possible to the enemy support crew. At that point, the second wave would evaluate whether they could hold against enemy reinforcements, and if not, retreat before they even arrived, satisfied with the damage they caused.
The key difference in their approaches to war was that to the soviets, every worker who manufactures goods or drives a supply truck or fixes a tank was just as important to the war effort as the person on the front charging the front line. The Nazis placed all the emphasis on "warrior spirit" or whatever nonsense, the people on the front line were the only ones who mattered, and so to retreat from a position, especially without a fight, would be seen as cowardly (with potentially severe repercussions) even if it was the correct decision.
The differences are also apparent in military technology. German tanks were very powerful, in line with Nazi power fantasies, but they were expensive to build and difficult to maintain or repair. Soviet tanks were much cheaper and mass produced, allowing them to field more of them, and of course the AK-47 is famous for it's simplistic design, if something goes wrong, it can easily be repaired in the field. As the war went on, German tanks and aircraft became increasingly convoluted and overengineered, ignoring that the actual weakness was logistics.
Actually this is utter nonsense. The Soviets killed around 80% of the Nazi soldiers and the West only 20%. The Allies did not do much killing because they did not do much in general. Besides trying to claim all the credit.
If you want to look it at from a statistical perspective, the soviets did a lot more dying than killing. They lost more soldiers than the nazis for crying out loud
It depends on the objective of the war. Nation building is basically impossible. Killing the crap out of an enemy until they surrender is pretty effective historically. Killing the crap out of select targets while avoiding excessive civilian casualties is generally ineffective. WWII was a total war scenario, the US and USSR absolutely killed entire areas of German and Japanese towns.
The people who become military when it is not wartime are psychos, believers and the desperate. The vast majority of people who are best at making war seem to choose to do other things with their time when it isn't wartime.
When was the last time the US wasn't in wartime though?
Wars of conquest or empire aren't what I'm referring to, to be clear.
E: And the results are in.
I specifically said “with troops deployed abroad,” giving everyone who has reacted here (A) the option to read that far and (B) the chance consider why that qualifier might be significant, knowing the knee jerk was likely but that it would demonstrate how used to the idea of a warrior class and risk-free acceptance of American imperialism we truly are.
If you are an American reading this, please ask yourself…
- Is it OK that the risks endured in military service are only optional for the well-off and those who have other options, yet an “opportunity” for social mobility (a way out of poverty) to the least privileged?
- Is it just that people overseas should fear American boots on their soil while you feel none and feel entitled to balk at the “shitty idea” of you or those you care about being selected to fill those boots?
- Can you wash your hands of responsibility for American actions abroad simply by claiming pacifism or conscientious objection?
US imperialism can only continue as long as all those who would object to violence can simply choose economic participation instead, enjoying the spoils at a safe distance while imagining their hands clean.
—— end of edit, original comment below ——
It’s part of why I think random conscription should be kept as the primary if not only means of military enlistment for any country with troops deployed abroad.
But the other part is why I think this policy should be constitutional and considered utterly sacred…
If combat is required, that is far too important a job to be left to the combative.
This might seem like a cruel policy but that’s because war is the cruel policy, even if it becomes necessary. Citizens should not be as emotionally sheltered from that truth as they are.
This is the moral argument for conscription or mandatory service in many nations, that it’s a deterrent to war when civilian voters are not free to compartmentalize it.
Random conscription is a terrible idea for a non-wartime army.
I always loved the idea of mandatory service. Everyone has to serve two years to get full "citizenship status", (what that means is definitely debatable).
But not necessarily military service. Your two years could be spent in a number of ways supporting the public good. Like the CCC from Roosevelt, or supporting firefighting, assisting with elderly care, all kinds of things could benefit.
Everyone or just men?
This is an important and real question.
In my fantasy, it doesn't matter. It should be irrelevant. (Gender, race, identity, etc...)
Starship Troopers exemplifies just how fucking shitty that idea is
Go on
Would you like to know more?
Conservatives love Rambo II and hate Rambo I
First Blood: War is horrible. War destroys people's minds, bodies, and souls. War spawns never-ending cycles of trauma and violence. Don't do war.
Every Subsequent Rambo Movie: FUCK YEAH, WAR, ARROOOO!!! 💥💥🧨🧨💪🏻💪🏻
See also: Rocky
Rambo 3: probably split because it's about killing Russians, but also aiding tErRoRiStS and watching it in modern times completely misses the point that this is kiiinda what lead to bin Laden
Conservatives made sequels to Jarhead
WTF?
sorry if this is how you found out an anti-war movie had several pro-war sequels lol
It is. That does seem on brand for movie execs though. Glad I went this long without knowing about them.
I recently watched both for the first time and they were horrible. But why would they like the hippie homeless vet killing cops story in rambo 2?
Edit: I was thinking of rambo 1. Rambo 2 he rescues hostages he was supposed to ignore. I forget the rest I think I was too hugh
Turns out wars are won by the people who would really rather not be at war
The red army is a similar story. They were mostly farmers who were tired of farming for rich people.
I don't think that does the Red Army justice. It was a brutal, ideologically driven force that absorbed horrific losses and kept fighting. It wasn't a "warrior cult" in the Japanese or Nazi sense, but it wasn't a bunch of civilians who'd "rather be doing anything else," either.
Considering how poorly US soldiers perform compared to the other nations—just look how consistently they lose war games too—they really should drop the act. The US military is a tech military and the warriors are just users looking for work and benefits in a difficult society.
This is also a leadership problem.
The us military ran a massive wargame in 2002, and blue team got curbstomped by a red teamer who designed his strategy around what Iran would be able to do: shutting down shipping, avoiding sigint (using messengers on motorcycles to carry orders, for example), having a highly distributed and resilient command structure, using small speedboats to sneak in and damage American vessels who got too close.
The military said "boo not fair you're supposed to let us blow you all up".
Remarkably predictive all in all.
It's also a problem with wargames in general. Since no one is dieing and there's no real stakes, it's more of a way for officers to show off their plans. If someone wins, but does it by deviating from the plan it makes the officers look bad. When there's actual lives on the line, winning starts looking better than how you won.
Cultivate a forklift operator ethos
Are you suggesting we require certification to join the military?