Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ThetaGangThroweway OP t1_j6jdbt5 wrote

Dude, it was easy to spot by what you thought "modern war" was like. What I say plagues even the Pentagon where most commanders assume the last big war plus recent tech trends equal "modern war." Also, most army commanders don't know a thing about strategic theory.

But an interesting point is that nuclear deterrence prevents major formalized governments from seeking conventional war, but there are many states that could breakup or spontaneously unify at any moment. There are also many points in history where large rogue armies sprung up overnight, and internal wars in countries where the conventional forces are either unable or unwilling to act, and extended periods when governments were defunct. You should not think all war is confined to conventional arms or insurrectionists.

1

Moist_Lunch_5075 t1_j6nsl4u wrote

>You should not think all war is confined to conventional arms or insurrectionists.

You're just not paying attention to what I'm saying because you seem to want an argument rather than a discussion.

You just rephrased my entire point as if it was a retort. LOL

You literally just distilled my entire argument into one sentence and then acted like that was somehow correcting me.

Also if the scenario you're talking about happens and world powers fragment and fracture, the Fed Funds Rate's not gonna be a thing anymore. Your entire scenario depends on the continuation of the world power structure, which is the core of my point... once we hit that point where the poison pill makes sense, things have radically changed in much more significant ways.

1

ThetaGangThroweway OP t1_j6ojwmj wrote

On the contrary, you're assuming there will be no war, rather a simple collapse of civilization.

0