(untitled)

Sorry Lain i have shizo issue. How a u think be hacker its analog of little cia?In the modern world hackers can be more effective than army?

Sorry man its a bit hard to read what you're saying. Hackers are only useful to war insofar as they aid the ability to kill people. In some cases that might mean they're really great, but they're connexion to killing is a lot more distant and tenuous than soldiers who go around kicking in doors and killing people. What good is a hacker fighting a bunch of goatfuckers in afganistan ? Not that much I'd wager. At best hackers can be useful support types, but you can't fight a war with a buch of people on laptops, the enemy will just turn off their computers and shoot you.

>>18569 depends on your definition of hackers. If you mean the guys who only ever work on infiltrating computer networks and working with malicious code, probably very ineffective against anyone except countries with strong dependence on digital infrastructure. If by Hackers you mean the classical people with the mindset and the interest of finding out the workings of security networks, finding loopholes and openings, and either utilizing them or just plainly playing around with them, they can be very useful as the typical sabotage and espionage units, finding insecurities and using them to damage the enemy.

Hacking is really only good for intelligence or in some cases sabotage. They would never me for effective than a actual army.

Thanks folks for answers!

>>18571 Conventional warfare is obsolete. Why risk the lives of your gun-toting boots on the ground bad boys when you can collapse a nation's logistical systems and then use psy-ops to convince it's people to start a civil war? The soldiers are your police force for when you've already won the war.

>>18581 Conventional warfare has only ever existed between factions within the same country who generally agree upon rules to follow together and more or less treat eachother as part of the same extended family. Psyops are as old as war itself, and there's been no significant advances in these arts in recent times. Are psychologists actually capable of fixing people ? Doesn't look like it from over here. Who has these magical phsycological powers ? CIA ? The ruskies ? the chinks ? (((them))) ? I don't buy it. The greatest psychological weapon is now, as it always has been, a great leader, terrifying to his foes and inspiring to his friends and followers.

>>18581 >Why risk the lives of your gun-toting boots on the ground bad boys when you can collapse a nation's logistical systems and then use psy-ops to convince it's people to start a civil war? because mobs are capricious beasts that don't always do what you want. Just look at what happened to the Germans when they sent Lenin back to Moscow. Basically a prototypical example of what you're talking about. They came *very* close to getting swept up in the ensuing socialist revolution themselves.

>>18581 >risk the lives of the army also, war is just plain fun and cool. Lots of young men want to go fight, why not let them. Its cool, fun, and probably healthy to have some infantry wars every now and then.

>>18584 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=djdu5Qpuux0

>>18584 >getting into a car accident is just plain fun and cool. Lots of young men want to speed, why not let them. Its cool, fun, and probably healthy to have some car accidents every now and then Are you a young man who has signed up to fight because its >cool and >fun ? Most of the experiences of people who where have previously done this don't say >cool and >fun . How about all of the harm it does, all the wasted resources, including the lives of young men , and the sorrows of their family. The Syrian civil-war has cost a generation of men and all the families and contributions to their country and the world they would have made. How can you be so naive as to conflate playing first person shooters, a game designed to simulate being a (largely) invincible hero for pleasure with war? If even numbers of forces fight, having a kill count greater than one is unlikely if kills are distributed uniformly. Think about how that compares to call of duty and bodes for your chances having cool fun. Also think about how war isn't designed to give you fair odds, and violent surprise attacks with unfair odds, or drones, IEDs, etc. Its not Valhalla or a sport. Its not something your going to crush as a hero for cool fun. fuarrrk you anyway. Think about all the harm to infrastructure, economies, resources , and the people you manage to kill? War is human, and the reality. but its not cool or fun or healthy.

>>18586 where in my poast did I say anything about vidya ya dolt. Aye, vidya are a fine example of a recent cultural device demonstrating the human fascination with war, but they be but one, a small molehill atop our great mountaine of cultur which mark that same spirit, the veneration of the warfighter and his heroism, the enjoyment of the conflict, of competing and winning through superior cunning and strength. Aye tis true that people must die, but if they didn't it wouldnt be the same thing now would it. If there is not that risk of total defeat, the victory would not taste so sweet now would it. And nae alas I hav'nt meself but with the ukraine heating up we shall see if tis my chance. I know not whence thy friends who've done it come, but tis clear they're no friends of mine. There are surely good aspects, and bad, but this goes for all things. With regards to uneven kill counts I'll point out that in a lot of wars things are pretty lopsided, even nowadays. Everyone's talking about the US war in afganistan, the USA lost some 2.5-7K people in Afganistan, the unallied afgans lost more than 50k. With numbers like that if you're the guy pulling triggers and you're good at it, its far from inconcievable to rack up a lot of kills. Thats simplified of course, the US had allies including other afgans who also lost a lot of people, but maybe you see my point. Obviously not all wars are equal, but still. >lost resources and energy It spends energy and resources and lives, yes, but it also forces societies to conform their expenditure of these things to reality, to make things work in the real world, and to rethink things in order to do them more effectively. It can inspire compotent peoples to do significant advances and improvements they unlikely would have done otherwise. World War II killed orders of magnitude more people than the Syrian Civil War. I'm not that convinced we'd have gotten jetplanes and nukes, rockets and good radar, among other things, anywhere near as early had we not had that impetus. There's also interesting things like how much improved the mental health of Londoners was when they were litterally getting bombed all the time. Theres a lot more to war than proletarians going out to kill their brothers at the prodding of Big Buisness, and comming back with the mental scars that they may be thrown out on the street to beg for crumbes while the Elite sip champaign on their yachts and watch fighter jet airshows, chuckling as their big numbers go up.

>>18588 Also for the record I 100% support speeding and think its possible to go too far in regulations about driver saftey.

>>18588 >With regards to uneven kill counts I'll point out that in a lot of wars things are pretty lopsided, even nowadays. Everyone's talking about the US war in afganistan, the USA lost some 2.5-7K people in Afganistan, the unallied afgans lost more than 50k. This is exactly the problem. Your mental model of war is that you'd love to go kill 7k afghans, and although there is a marginal risk of 'total default', its remote and unlikely. Afghanistan is an anomaly that doesn't meet your fantasy criteria anyway: Your imagining infantry battles when the reality is more like occupying police force with irregular attacks and IEDs. Drone Operators are problem people with the kill count, and some of them have described it as unfair and absolutely inglorious. Further, Virtually no one would suggest that the Afganistan War has improved any society in which took part. Maybe you should imagine more fighting in world war II where one estimate has a 62% chance of your being wounded >https://teddit.net/r/AskHistorians/comments/5x62aw/during_ww2_how_did_casualty_rates_compare_between/ One interesting argument perhaps in your favor is the ability of governments to competently organize people toward any end has absolutely went to 0.

>>18590 afganistan was a lot of fun for the door kicking and shootem up type if they got into special forces. I say this because I meet people who did it. I dont know any drone pilots, I'm sure they're out there. And yeah, there was plenty of the policing / dealing with ieds / stupid stuff, but my point here is if kill counts are your goal (and you're compotent) it is achievable. Such skewed ratios of deaths on one side are not unique to Afganistan, Desert Storm also had a pretty lopsided ratio, and there are a lot of examples in history of other such things, in America and Africa where the Euros come in and with tiny armies defeat civilizations, or just in general in historical battles where one army victoriously routes another one, or look how many people the Soviets hemmoraged on the Eastern front in WWII. Obviously you don't know for sure how the odds will work out till after the war is over, you can guess but theres some chance. And even in wars where you loose, if kill counts are your thing, there are some pretty crazy numbers. How many german pilots in the second world war had over 100 kills ? Not to mention the snipers. Most soldiers aren't exceptional, but war gives them all an opportunity in which to throw their hats in the ring and give it a try. A single fighter can defeat the best ace, a ship can be sunk in a single shot. No matter who you are, all it takes is one well placed bullet to kill you, and anyone can, in theory, be the one to do it. That casualty breakdown is pretty interesting, thanks for the link. I'd be interested if we had similar breakdowns for the other militaries (probably out there somewhere maybe I'll find it). There's an idea I've heard as a joke, or well, a half joke, something about how people make such a big deal about injuries and stuff from war or activity, they over look the injuries people suffer all the time from sitting in chairs. Thats too dismissive a note to end that with though. I don't really know your background, so I don't want to presume about your own feelings, but surely you have seen some of the sort of crazy things young men often do. You mention speeding, thats just one, I dont know how many people I've known who take their hands off the steering wheel and mess around while barreling down the highway at high speed. All sorts of wild drunken stories -- and then go and get drunk again next week. They fly airplanes and go skydiving and take crazy drugs and get in fights. Who mess around with guns and fireworks. All of skateboarding, even without the tricks, those weird electric scooters and somehow I almost forgot motorcycles. If you think there isn't a large class of people that isn't especially concerned about being exposed to chances of injury and death, I really don't know what to say to you. This focus on kill counts might be a bit misguided though, and was bourne out of the silly video game examples. A big part of war is just that it is a unified project that many people can work on and see the actual results, with God or the universe as your judge. A lot of people get frustrated with their jobs because they seem useless, but generally speaking war is neccisarily tied to achieving real results, and to do that a country needs to efficiently manage its resources, which means giving people work that isnt just bullshit. Afganistan might have been weird in these respects. Why was the US there again ? Oh yeah, to kill Osama Binladen, or maybe because they were a concievable haven for others like him, or maybe to bring womens liberation to the poor afgani savages. And to do it with least possible american casualties, but also be there for years. Someone in the Pentagon needs their brain checked. But even still, at least on an individual level, there is some grappling with the reality that you are doing dangerous things, and that your continued life and the life of your comrades is proof you are doing something right. And of course, if you have a war with a real objective, efficiently serving that objective can be rewarding, whether you're kicking in doors or growing your own garden so you can spare more groceries for the guys on the front. And if some people die for the cause ? Well the cause is good. That is the real way afganistan is a bad example for my point. >One interesting argument perhaps in your favor is the ability of governments to competently organize people toward any end has absolutely went to 0 and with a good war for survival, an incompotent government will be forced to either shape up fast or get replaced. Probably would get a lot of people off antidepressants, too.

No you got it the wrong way, agencies and armies are the most effective hackers.

>>18593 But isn’t infantry the dead in modern warfare? You will be killed by drones. artillery. mines. And if you are not an infantryman, then it’s difficult to feel the war