He told the New York Times that he thinks the U.S. will “very likely” find itself in a three-front war with China, Russia, and Iran. As a result, he said, the Pentagon should continue developing autonomous weapons at full speed, pointing to big mismatches in how far the U.S. would be willing to go while fighting a war compared with other countries.

Source

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 73 points 1 year ago (16 children)

He's also got plenty of financial incentive to say shit like that. War on all 3 of those fronts would be so untenable with the state of things and he knows that which is why he's advocating for more drones but really? How realistic is that? China's drones are at least as advanced as ours

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 1 year ago* (15 children)

    We have the arsenal to win all 3 wars almost instantly. Until now, no leader was stupid enough to take that route, but we have Trump.

    Don't try to logic this situation with reasonable military tactics.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 39 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Define win because I’m pretty sure it doesn’t mean what you think it means.

    The only tactic with “almost instant” results would be the US just nuking everything, which A. is definitely not a “win” by any definition, and B. is an insanely irresponsible assumption that there wouldn’t be substantial collateral damage and that’s if you were inhumane enough to ignore the lives of everyone living in the targeted countries to begin with.

    Or somehow do you think the US could win a conventional war against three separate countries “almost instantly”, after it took 2 decades to make absolutely no lasting changes in Afghanistan? In which case just lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 1 year ago (4 children)
  • [–] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    I believe they are referring to a far blunter instrument of death which would only purvey loss on a scale that is unprecedented and difficult to imagine.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Again, as the other respondent pointed out, the overwhelmingly likely end result of a nuclear exchange is hardly a “win” for any party.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Oh yeah, I just finished editing to add that part to be more clear of my opinion on the subject. There will never again be a nuclear “win” in human history, and in truth I wouldn’t even count the first.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 1 year ago

    No you don´t. You couldn´t win in Vietnam or Afghanistan, the latter with the help of NATO (Rmember, srticle 5 was invoked by the US, and some of us European deeply regret to have helped and sent our soldiers die for the US).

  • source
  • parent