The Syrian Civil War. Do you support a side?

[PinCussion]

And they lost a pair of Leopard II's to ISIS as somebody said earlier in the thread.

I do not remember any war without casualties.

You lost a pair of high tech tanks to Abu Hajaar. Think about that.

 

[Cpt. Nemo]

And not destroyed by ISIS. Captured.

 

[PinCussion]

Yeah.

 

[Swissky]

One was out of action ( i.e: Not burning but suffering from mechanical errors) and the other was heavily damaged. I hardly think they would have much use for them save for the turrets.

 

[Lord Raider]

In what way to do you feel that the number of nukes the US has compared to the rest of the world has changed significantly in the recent years?

Again, I'm not saying technology doesn't matter or doesn't have a place in analyzing military power, but you're making some gigantic leaps of unfounded logic when you assume that suddenly several military  in the world will be comparable to the US because of technological advancements. It's like any "what if scenario" of course we can come up with some amazing technology that changes warfare forever, but the chances of such a technology being developed and the US not managing to keep up with the race is pretty low barring some massive catastrophe that ruins their entire technological/military industrial complex. Similarly this technology would then also have to be something that negates the numerical, resource, and geographical advantage the US has and continues to enjoy.

The issue is further compounded by the fact that even if you suddenly say develop a new tank or fighter plane or whatever, you still need the money to equip your troops with it. Which is where say Russia and China struggle, sure they have developed great weapons that might even rival those of the US, but by and large they are in no way able to as thoroughly spread said weapons across their military forces.

Sure, I never said that this theory will come true. I'm trying to learn your consideration about this possibility. But as I see, you don't want to look at the problem from the other side.

Sure, but by that logic essentially there are something like 100+ countries in the world that are "almost super powers" because of a good starting point (e.g., thanks to successful espionage).

I mean hell, even North Korea pulls of successful hacking and espionage operations, but I'm not inclined to consider a country that can barely feed itself to be anywhere near being a superpower.

I never heard that a country who hacked US military satellites, but if someone did this in right time with a military power like Russia or China. Are we sure that US can handle it?

If the world were to eventually become a series of larger alliances (ala Battlefield 2142), then sure, I expect the US/NATO alliance would actually be challenged for once.

Basically TL;DR: "For the foreseeable future the US will remain the dominate superpower, China might eventually challenge them for hegemony in Asia and become a superpower, everyone else is basically left out of the big boys club unless some totally earth changing event occurs." (Which is why we run into these problems of "What if scenarios?" Like sure, say America is hit by an asteroid and is reduced to rubble, that would provide an excellent chance for China to step up and rule the world, but at the point we might as well discuss the chances of America developing an AI army that ultimately proves to be unstoppable and ushers in the a new era of American superiority).

I read lots of sentences like these. But if you read the Ottoman Empire in 16th century for this matter, you can see same reactions and discourses. They always supposed that they will continue to rule as a superpower. Then scientific revolutions changed everything, trala la.

And they lost a pair of Leopard II's to ISIS as somebody said earlier in the thread.

I do not remember any war without casualties.

You lost a pair of high tech tanks to Abu Hajaar. Think about that.

And not destroyed by ISIS. Captured.

My fault, it was not 'any'. True typing is: "I do not remember a war without casualties."

 

[Temuzu]

My fault, it was not 'any'. True typing is: "I do not remember a war without casualties."

That's not really the point they're making though.

 

[Lord Raider]

My fault, it was not 'any'. True typing is: "I do not remember a war without casualties."

That's not really the point they're making though.

What is the point that they're making though?

 

[Úlfheðinn]

Sure, I never said that this theory will come true. I'm trying to learn your consideration about this possibility. But as I see, you don't want to look at the problem from the other side.

I do, but I'm always wary of widely theorizing, especially when the theorizing doesn't start with a concrete basis.

It's like Turkey, sure we can sit here and throw "What if" scenarios around where Turkey somehow gains the resources, industry and technology to rival Russia, China, and the US, but without looking at the current state of Turkey as a country (and your military) it's a bit silly.

I never heard that a country who hacked US military satellites, but if someone did this in right time with a military power like Russia or China. Are we sure that US can handle it?

Targeting satellites both via electronic warfare, cyber warfare, and conventional means (like missiles) is an interesting area of current (and likely future) research, given how useful denying your enemy use of their satellites is.

However, if we look at the last couple of years, I think it's pretty clear everyone is fairly vulnerable to things like worms, viruses, and simple human error (like people not using strong passwords or keeping physical copies of passwords). There's also a pretty big problem in that like most security vulnerabilities, no nation or intelligence service is going to sit there and tell the public what they can do or know, which again makes speculating pretty hard.

For example, while I fully expect the US, Russia, and China are currently (and pretty much always) trying to hack each other's various government networks/computers/whatever, I also don't expect barring the rarest of circumstances that they'll openly talk about it (apart from when it may be beneficial to them to simply out a caught intrusion or when an intrusion is leaked to the press).

I read lots of sentences like these. But if you read the Ottoman Empire in 16th century for this matter, you can see same reactions and discourses. They always supposed that they will continue to rule as a superpower. Then scientific revolutions changed everything, trala la.

I'd argue the difference is that I'm not saying there's no way the United States suddenly loses a lot of power or that another nation rises to become a rival superpower, but rather that vague answers like "technology will change everything" isn't really useful as a means of understanding what may happen.

 

[Lord Raider]

I know that we've already left from Syria matters.

I do, but I'm always wary of widely theorizing, especially when the theorizing doesn't start with a concrete basis.

It's like Turkey, sure we can sit here and throw "What if" scenarios around where Turkey somehow gains the resources, industry and technology to rival Russia, China, and the US, but without looking at the current state of Turkey as a country (and your military) it's a bit silly.

I suggest you 'Ethnogenesis and the Biosphere of Earth' book which was written by Lev Gumilyov. It may help you to why I locked on this matter. I will try his thinking way to understand system which is working on this world with a few sentences.

Imagine that you're not from this planet and flying over the earth with a spaceship in 18th century. Note everything what you see. Repeat this in 20th century and note all the changes and compare your concrete basis from 18th century. Can you say that concrete basis of 18th century is still working?

We found Postmodernism because Modernist perspective didn't work most of times. So, your logic is acceptable for Ancient Greek, Enlightment and 19th century but not for today.

 

[Almalexia]

A scientific theory still requires a reasonable basis and body of evidence.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

A scientific theory still requires a reasonable basis and body of evidence.

Basically this, I'm not saying we can't ever move beyond our current knowledge/experience (e.g., of course we're going to have to make assumptions and not everything is going to be based on examining the past or the present), but I think it's best to utilize a balanced approach.

We found Postmodernism because Modernist perspective didn't work most of times. So, your logic is acceptable for Ancient Greek, Enlightment and 19th century but not for today.

I think that's a bit of a strange argument, if technological changes were as vital as you seem to be arguing, then it's silly to suggest that somehow we've reached a period of time so divorced from the past that the same methods of analysis no longer apply (e.g., if you feel that technology means that Turkey can become a rival to Russia/China, then it's silly to suggest that something similar wasn't possible in the 19th century).

 

[Lord Raider]

A scientific theory still requires a reasonable basis and body of evidence.

We're passing to philosophy of science from Syrian Civil War Whatever, I always love to talk about philosophy but my English is limited.

First of all, I have to say that every scientific theory requires a destiny which will falsify itself. This is the structure of the science. As you know, after the scientific revolution, most of scientist began to worship science as religion. But every theory has broken by new studies, they always failed. As Nietzsche said "Only thing which is stable is the change." So, can we describe anything as reasonable? In my opinion, real scientific theory must include the terms of possibilities like 'mostly', 'probably', 'most likely'. 

Note: After few sentences, I understood that my qualification is not enough to talk about philosophy of science.

Some books which include changes of scientific consideration from epistemological side;

'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' by Thomas Kuhn,
'On Certainty' by Ludwig Wittgenstein,
'Truth and Method' by Hans-Georg Gadamer.

 

[Úlfheðinn]

I think Almalexia's point with referencing scientific theory, was more to suggest that even when you are operating at an abstract level it is usually beneficial to rely on something tangible.

I mean focusing on Turkey again, my problem/argument isn't that we can't talk about a situation where Turkey grows to be a world power, but as far as I can tell, such a change would require a string of very convenient changes on a global scale, so ultimately I'd default to "it seems unlikely that Turkey will rise above a regional power in the near future".

Focusing on Turkey, what do you see as needing to occur for Turkey to become a global power?



Regarding science, I'd agree that science isn't about truth, it's simply about saying "based on what we currently know, we would predict that _____". To add to probably and most likely, fun science words are "suggests, supports, disconfirms, highlights, indicates, may, might, could" and terrible words are "truth/truths/fact/facts/proven".

Similarly I would say when you are making predictions or hypothesis, generally you don't predict everything, you predict what you think is reasonable based on the current sum of knowledge, and then test it, then revise your theory, and repeat again. Completely "shot in the dark" predictions are slightly less useful when you are trying to understand a topic (for the simple reason that blind guessing isn't super great).

 

[Almalexia]

First of all, I have to say that every scientific theory requires a destiny which will falsify itself. This is the structure of the science. As you know, after the scientific revolution, most of scientist began to worship science as religion.

Probably the language barrier at work here, but that's not really accurate, and doesn't make too much sense. Also the last bit isn't really correct. Scientific inquiry operates on a different mental paradigm than worship: they aren't mutually exclusive, but a move away from wholesale acceptance of the religious dogma doesn't imply that because they switched from worshiping a higher power (though again, religion and science isn't mutually exclusive, just sometimes at odds) they switched to worshiping science as a "religion". They're practically speaking on two different planes of the human imagination and thought. As always, I find the Yin-Yang exemplar of the duality useful for understanding the two paradigms of thought.

But every theory has broken by new studies, they always failed. As Nietzsche said "Only thing which is stable is the change." So, can we describe anything as reasonable? In my opinion, real scientific theory must include the terms of possibilities like 'mostly', 'probably', 'most likely'. 

Well, certainly. I think, particularly on the last part, that this is exactly what we are trying to convey. Given the current situation, politically, militarily, and economically in Turkey, nonetheless among the other countries you have listed, how can the conclusion "most likely", or even "probably", result in some sort of sweeping and centralized political-military organization stretching across the swath of Eurasia?

Now, if your claim was simpler, say, that the economic center of the world was shifting back to the "East", than yeah, absolutely. You can track economic trends and statistics. But throw politics into it, and everything gets a lot messier, especially given the current situation of relations. Turkey doesn't get along with Iran, China isn't really friends with India, the China-Russian cooperation is tense and based on pragmatism born of the structure of the UN Security Council alone... etc. Now we could speculate on situations that might change that, but that is all you can do: speculate. Given the current state of affairs, one would logically conclude that close alliance between even any of the powers listed: Russia, Turkey, China, India, and Iran, to be "unlikely".

*EDIT*

Ninja'd.

 

[Temuzu]

My fault, it was not 'any'. True typing is: "I do not remember a war without casualties."

That's not really the point they're making though.

What is the point that they're making though?

I think the point is that Turkey, who supposedly has a modern army, lost a top-of-the-line tank to some rag-tag group of sand guerrillas. Which is all kinds of revealing and hilarious, perhaps even unsurprising.

 

[Cpt. Nemo]

Spoiler

My fault, it was not 'any'. True typing is: "I do not remember a war without casualties."

That's not really the point they're making though.

What is the point that they're making though?

I think the point is that Turkey, who supposedly has a modern army, lost a top-of-the-line tank to some rag-tag group of sand guerrillas. Which is all kinds of revealing and hilarious, perhaps even unsurprising.

Sort of this. Yes, it's war, some tanks are going to be damaged or blown up. No tank is invulnerable, no crew is undefeatable. The United States lost a few Abrams over the years, for example. But no tank was ever allowed to be captured by the enemy. The very few times the tank couldn't be recovered, it was blown sky ****ing high to deny the enemy of ammunition, technology, weaponry, and trophies.

Turkey abandoned them to the enemy. ISIS isn't likely to reverse engineer a tank anytime soon, but they did get plenty of goodies that were left ready to use inside the tank, and embarrassed Turkey thoroughly. That's not really something a proper military would allow against insurgents.
https://southfront.org/isis-releases-more-photos-with-captured-destroyed-turkish-military-equipment/

 

[Cyborg Eastern European]

I'd like to note, that it did take a while before the US to started losing tanks as well, and the two probably are close enough in performance that tactics for one ought to work on the other.

But still, they basically lost a platoon's worth of tanks in a matter of what? Days? Hours? Minutes, even?

 

[Swissky]

Personally I find Turkey and their FSA allies incompetence on taking Al-Bab to be more mind-blowing. 

 

[Lord Raider]

Focusing on Turkey, what do you see as needing to occur for Turkey to become a global power?

This can be a good topic for a new book. If I talk from the real(!) world, I can say that Turkey must do lots of things to become a global power.

First of all, our education system isn't working about five hundred years. And mostly, Islam is the most effective factor for this problem. Because, one of the greatest Sultan of Ottoman Empire, Selim I, after the gained the title of 'Caliph', invited clergy of 'Selefi/Eshari' sect. Before this, Turks were mostly 'Maturidi' which was a reconciled sect with science. This became beginning of Turkish collapse. We're trying to fix this since this times.

We must change this and build a new educational system for our requirements. We're not European, not Middle Easterner, not Asian. We're the people of migration and changing. In my opinion, new education system must build on this basis. I'm sure that technology and other developments will materialize after if we can achieve this.

Second; as you know, Turkish lands are enough for Turkish people for agriculture, clean water and other natural resources. But after this government, policies changed and Turkey became a country which is importing most of his needs. We even imported wheat from Bulgaria and Ukraine. Can you imagine that? Anatolia is feeding its people thousands of years. But we're importing wheat. So, we must rebuild our agriculture system.

Third; I talked on negative sides of us, but, as I read from history, Turks always show a characteristic which is related to conquer and rule. I'm not a Neo-Ottomanist but Arabs... I'm not sure that there is a possibility for peace and justice while they're ruling in Middle East. After the new educational system, technological developments, agriculture revolution, Turks should do something to bring peace and justice as a one of the most experienced nation in Earth for Middle East.

If we can do these three and it is possible to open a way for becoming a global power.

Well, certainly. I think, particularly on the last part, that this is exactly what we are trying to convey. Given the current situation, politically, militarily, and economically in Turkey, nonetheless among the other countries you have listed, how can the conclusion "most likely", or even "probably", result in some sort of sweeping and centralized political-military organization stretching across the swath of Eurasia?

Now, if your claim was simpler, say, that the economic center of the world was shifting back to the "East", than yeah, absolutely. You can track economic trends and statistics. But throw politics into it, and everything gets a lot messier, especially given the current situation of relations. Turkey doesn't get along with Iran, China isn't really friends with India, the China-Russian cooperation is tense and based on pragmatism born of the structure of the UN Security Council alone... etc. Now we could speculate on situations that might change that, but that is all you can do: speculate. Given the current state of affairs, one would logically conclude that close alliance between even any of the powers listed: Russia, Turkey, China, India, and Iran, to be "unlikely".

Actually, I've no claim. I was born in Turkey and visited few European countries. I'm just wondering that 'what if paradigm changes'. Because we growed in a culture that is trying to catch 'West', this is not abnormal for me. We accustommed to live in problems, crisis, coup attemts, explosions. But for US and Europe, if paradigm changes, results may be crushing for people which is living in peace.

Sort of this. Yes, it's war, some tanks are going to be damaged or blown up. No tank is invulnerable, no crew is undefeatable. The United States lost a few Abrams over the years, for example. But no tank was ever allowed to be captured by the enemy. The very few times the tank couldn't be recovered, it was blown sky **** high to deny the enemy of ammunition, technology, weaponry, and trophies.

Turkey abandoned them to the enemy. ISIS isn't likely to reverse engineer a tank anytime soon, but they did get plenty of goodies that were left ready to use inside the tank, and embarrassed Turkey thoroughly. That's not really something a proper military would allow against insurgents.
https://southfront.org/isis-releases-more-photos-with-captured-destroyed-turkish-military-equipment/

In my opinion, you should read this kind of news from both sides. TSK (Turkish Armed Forces) explained this. One broken Leopard-2 abandoned, when Euphrates Shield Forces withdrawed ISIS placed bomb to kill soldiers who will come to capture it. Because of this Turkish F-16s bombed the tank. As I remember there is one APC that is hit by ISIS abandoned too. War is something like that. It's normal.

Personally I find Turkey and their FSA allies incompetence on taking Al-Bab to be more mind-blowing. 

Civilians, suicide bombers, bomb traps, experienced fighters who is ready to die for heaven, narrow streets, hired snipers, winter... This kind of wars are always unpredictable.

 

[Wellenbrecher]

There's apparently an ISIS video showing the... let's say "execution" of two captured Turkish soldiers from that al-Bab disaster with the tanks.
Apparently talking about and/or sharing that video will get you arrested in Turkey. Just for funsies.

/edit
Oh, commenting on the video on sites where it was shared will put you on the list as well.
Roughly 10.000 folks are being investigated.



Wait what? The official ISIS head for Turkey is known by name and face and is free to move about the country? The ****?
He's giving interviews on TV and ****.