War has assailed humanity for over ten thousand years and, frankly, we’ve had enough of it.
Luckily, war has no place on our planet these days. At least not to the extent we’ve seen in the past. It’s neither profitable for the many, nor is it easier with technology. Let’s talk about why.
Past Lessons Many Have Yet to Heed
Many generals across the globe came to this very conclusion after WWII. Many politicians pushed the envelope further with Vietnam, Afghanistan (twice), Iraq (twice), and now Ukraine.
What WWII taught the observant was war is hard to profit off of.
The very fact that terror bombing was so popular in the 40s alludes to this widely accepted narrative. Allegedly, Hitler started bombing the British cities because he thought that would get Britain to capitulate (surrender). All the while, his generals and air marshals were screaming at him to focus on bombing war factories.
Back then, the common assumption was that if you got rid of the enemies’ organized opposition (Army, Navy, and Airforce) then the country was easy-pickins’.
Or at least that’s how most generals thought. Some others, for example, General MacArthur, thought that if you put a country through enough death and hell, they’d eventually turn over. They were essentially proven wrong in Japan until the use of atomic weapons. Which cannot be used nowadays without ruining everything you hope to gain in the conquest.
Only people like Admiral Yamamoto had a semblance of reality when he issued this quote:
“You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Admiral Yamamoto
So, the late Admiral is just one man who saw the reality. The reality that people were many, and armies couldn’t compete in an occupying sense. If people fought back, it would be next to impossible to win. Why? Because you had to send a whole flotilla and upwards of half a million men to get 30 miles inland on the main continents. The major continents that had all ‘the monies’. Furthermore, soldiers are not police officers and end up creating more unrest than they do peace.
So, Yamamoto and many other generals and admirals already saw the problems the population booms had inflicted on conquest.
I mentioned MacArthur as well. He bombed more people than anyone in history. During the Korean war, he allegedly wanted to drop atomics on China and make use of the American technological dominance at the behest of all the influence the Americans accrued over the last half-century.
Why did he want to A-bomb China? Because the Americans were losing to the Chinese reinforcements pouring over the border. How do you stop a country with almost five times as many people as you? Well, you sure as hell can’t with conventional weaponry. MacArthur knew this. Hence why his gun-ho mentality fell on A-bombs as the only answer.
So, my point is, already by World War II and shortly thereafter the writings on the wall. You needed too much stuff to occupy or conquer a modern country.
Fast Forward to Nam
Now we get to Vietnam, a country with 38 million people during the Vietnam war.
The Americans couldn’t afford politically to send the required forces to Vietnam.
They had a technocracy, but that means jack when you can’t find people you want to blow up. And the jungle was the reason they couldn’t find anyone.
The Viet Cong dragged artillery up jungle hills and showered a French airport before the Americans even showed up. Once the Americans got there, the immortal image of western military power was already weathered.
The Vietnamese knew all they had to do was to last long enough to sway opinion. They also had Soviet consultants and even airmen telling them how to defeat these fancy technologies.
All these little tidbits of information all chipped away at the thing superpowers needed most — an unstoppable image.
Now let’s talk about Afghanistan. The Soviet Afghanistan war, that is. The Soviets attacked a country that has a long history of war. What did the American CIA do during this? They trained a radically Muslim force to fight the Soviets.
They taught them things like how to use shoulder-mounted infrared missiles. The CIA — like the KGB in Vietnam — also taught them guerrilla tactics and how to use radios to the best advantage. They organized tribes into ghosts with machine guns and missiles. A terrifying enemy for any invading force.
The real irony in all this is the very people who depended on the image of superpower ‘dominance’–Soviet and American policymakers and militants–were the very people who shattered the façade.
Essentially, you had a superpower army trying to conquer a lessor country or “liberate” while the opposing superpower’s espionage departments (spies) were helping the defenders. This included advice, intelligence, and weapons.
Both wars were lost. You can’t claim it any other way. The superpowers entered, killed thousands (Soviet Afghanistan war) or killed millions (American Vietnam war) of enemy combatants and civilians, and retreated when they realized their countries weren’t happy with their progress.
That’s a cold analysis, but basically what happened. Both superpowers failed and failed largely in part due to the enemy's numbers and ability to use clout: caves, jungles, or cities.
Cities like Kyiv
Now, here we are and I still haven’t mentioned Ukraine, but bear with me.
Cities today are big. Many of us have heard the term concrete jungle (city). And it’s a known fact infantry is at its best in cluttered environments such as jungles, caves, or concrete jungles for that matter.
While tanks and planes have become more effective, so have infantry. Infantry can melt into the landscape and only pop out in coiled rage when required.
You can imagine how well one tank does against 5 people effectively spread out and able to hit it from all sides. That’s why tanks are only good in frontal assaults and only with supporting infantry. They're essentially cannon fodder that can take a couple of hits while supporting an assault with infantry.
Warfare is all about hiding, shooting, then moving. Or “shoot and scoot” as many grunts call it. If you can get first shots on an enemy, then they will either be dead or concussed, and less willing or able to hit you back.
It’s as amazing as it is despicable what high explosive or molten jets of copper can do to people and equipment, and naturally, you want to witness this from as far as possible or not at all.
Yet, these weapons don’t do a hell of a lot to concrete. Especially reinforced concrete, believe it or not. Yes, you can blow up a building here and there. But let’s look at Kyiv and really take in how many buildings there are in a modern city. And! When you collapse a building it could be a better bunker in the end.
Now what? You have hostile forces all around you. What building do you blow up first? How much ammunition do you have? If you tell your infantry to enter, will they?
There are thousands of ways to hamper a modern army's progression in these concrete jungles. Every time you misstep, you lose more of your force. It’s a nightmare for any empathetic general. Because you know many of your people will die no matter how clever you are.
With cities, you don’t only have the ground, you have 50th floors, tunnels, subways, sewers, and rubble to hide in until those invaders drive or walk right under your nose. In which case you let them have it. After you admire your handy work for a couple of milliseconds, you run like the dickens! By which time hopefully an enemy of your enemy is handing you and your friends more anti-tank rockets like the Ukrainians are getting. Obviously, it’s never this easy, but there were forty-four million people in Ukraine before the war broke out, so lots of opportunity, lots of helping hands.
Russia is in a world of hurt. And they’ve dragged their youth and the whole country of Ukraine into their stupidity.
They’re attacking cities with babies, friends, and family in them and they think the Ukrainians will just give up like some rural farmers in WWII? No, the resolve will last as long as they do, and Russia’s influence will take at least a generation to recover. It’s a terrible situation for everyone involved.
It’s true it's always been a geopolitical time bomb. But none of us thought this would turn into a threat to life on the planet after all these years. This situation now needs to be handled delicately and I don’t envy any decision-makers involved. But it has two options: it can either de-escalate or risk all the life on our lonely planet. I sincerely hope neither Nato nor Russia want to risk our planet's ability to sustain our lives.
Human Costs
Nuclear or chemical warfare aside, in order to take a modern first-world country, you’d need at least half a million soldiers fully equipped with not only ammo, food, energy, but you need time as well. Because you have to take it slow, the quicker you go, the more IEDs, mines, and other traps your soldiers will fall in.
Now how much does that cost? What is the return on investment? Well, let’s first talk about a war that achieved its goals. The first Desert Storm.
Bush Senior spent allegedly 60 billion dollars to crumble the Iraqi defence force. They also sent a massive armour column through the desert and smashed through the Iraqi armour. And in the end, for all of Bush’s faults, he was smart enough to pull out because he took the ability to attack from the Iraqis and liberated Kuwait. Mission accomplished.
All this, and there was no occupation mind you, cost 60 billion dollars.
Now here’s the clincher, this was one of the most incredibly executed wars this planet’s ever seen and it took two weeks. Two weeks, 60 billion dollars.
Now, that’s what it takes to de-militarize an army. Not carry out an occupation. And the Americans made few mistakes un-like the second time with George W. who blitzkriegged with armour columns only to end up at cities. Cities who then laid into his toys and boys like they were standing still.
So, Desert Storm took two weeks, and it was a cleverly executed war, and it still cost 60 billion dollars. The “War in Iraq” on the other hand, or the second war between Iraq and the United States cost an estimated $1.922 trillion!
The Biggest Secret
So, to occupy or attack in this day and age is COSTLY in every regard. Perhaps some private investors make money, but it's almost political suicide to engage in prolonged wars. Which is fantastic because our politicians are often, if anything, selfish.
That means armies should be strictly for defence.
So a superpower's ability to threaten is clipped. The despotic image… Gone!
The secrets out, all those big scary superpower armies don’t mean a damn thing anymore. The days of conquest should be over.
War has always been a stupid extension of crowd mentality, but now, thanks to overpopulation, it’s ludicrous.
コメント