I'm glad you liked it. "Don't Look Up" used the asteroid as a metaphor for Global Warming. I decided it works better as quantified science.
The problem with Global Warming and Climate Change is that they are so nebulous. It's very difficult to explain them to people in a way they can immediately understand and visualize.
Everyone can visualize and understand 33 bombs per square mile of ocean on the planet.
Everyone can translate that image into the amount of heat building up in the oceans. The connection is explicit.
That heat in the Oceans is "Global Warming" made visible.
So, when you say that the amount of heat in the Oceans is going to double over the next 15 years. Suddenly, everyone can understand EXACTLY what that means.
Hi, I have problems with the Trafalgar and Tsushima examples. Even if France was a world power back then, British fleet had always been superior since the Spanish armada incident centuries ago, even before Trafalgar Nelson had already scored a major victory in The Nile, and even in what we can call the decline of the British Empire, in events such as WW2, the British fleet was still formidable and arguably the best navy at the start of the conflict and the second best navy at the end(just behind US Navy of course). Naval tradition in the British is very strong.
And Russian navy at no point in their history have been a top navy, Japan had already tested their fleet against the Chinese in the Yalu River.
We can see examples of how even in empires experiencing decline, their armed forces remain of high quality. The second example that comes to mind are The Spanish Tercios, even in the phase of decline of Spanish Empire, Tercios remained a formidable force that despite their defeat at Rocroi, they continued having some successes.
And, it kind of depends how much resilience a country has even after suffering major defeats. For example Rome. In both Punic Wars their armies and navies suffered catastrophic defeats. On the naval phase, Romans were lucky to be able to steal a Carthaginian ship, but in land defeats, such as Cannae. Rome time after time recovered and kept sending legions until Scipius defeated Carthage.
And here is my opinion as a guy that is not American.(I'm Mexican )Hope it's the same case with US Navy, given their tradition, the great commanding officers of WW2(btw, Nimitz should have had the full control of Pacific theatre, McArthur was such an overrated dumbass). As a non-american(Mexican here) that hates US interventionism, if I have to recognize something is that US has an incredible logistic capacity to deploy anywhere and their armed forces, even admitted my other NATO countries are pretty much the best. The only thing that can really defeat US is precisely the internal conflict and polarization, and also precisely the capitalist-consumerism system undermines your armed forces. Just look at the low recruitment rates. Either people is out of shape (unable to access the services that ensure their health and mainly Americans are opted to consume McDonalds garbage), or has decided that they no longer want to participate in eternal wars every decade,(and of course the shitty treatment that veterans receive when they return home after seeing things no man should see)
But, you probably know better given your past in the military as a SEAL
Oh happy day, a fellow military history enthusiast. I just tacked that bit on, I didn't expect any comments on it. Still, such a good comment has to be answered. I so rarely get to 'talk shop' these days.
The Brits had not been "superior" since the Spanish Armada. The Seven Years War with France was a brutal struggle across the globe that broke the French and almost broke the British. The knock on effects of that war led to the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Part of Napoleon's appeal with the mob was his promise to "Make France Great Again".
In many ways the Napoleonic Wars are a rematch of the Seven Year War. Much the same way that WWII can be viewed as a rematch of WWI.
Have you read Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers"? It makes clear how intense the struggle was and how close both sides were to breaking.
The Battle of the Nile cost Napoleon an army in Egypt and the flow of Egyptian wheat he hoped to secure for France. However, it did not destroy the French Main Battle Fleet. As long as that fleet remained a "force in being" the British did not control the Mediterranean.
Trafalgar was the "nail in the coffin" for the French fleet.
I have thoughts about your other points but need to call it a night.
About Tsushima. I think you are missing the point.
The Russo-Japanese War was farcical in many respects. The Russians were so overmatched. What was important about Tsushima was the shock it sent through the WHITE world. A "Non White" country of "inferior people" had defeated the navy of a WHITE Great Power.
The unexpectedness of it, after the European world watched with fascination for months as the Russian Main Battle Fleet sailed all the way from Europe to Asia. The press reporting on the Russian progress and pundits confidently predicting that the "little yellow monkeys" should be defeated quickly.
The shock of the Russian defeat made Japan's rise real to White Empire. A major naval defeat of the US fleet would, in many minds, signal a Great Power in terminal decline.
Oh, I did not explain myself well, I did not meant that British had always been superior as a whole, France in Napoleonic Wars had the best land army by far, and even in Seven Years Wars, Prussia arguably was the best land army.
But British naval fleet since Spanish armada has always been superior to the other naval fleets and has a consistent record of crushing the French Navy, that's what I meant, (even in conditions of inferiority in Land Warfare) of course The Seven Years War was brutal, but if you look at the naval engagements, Brits absolutely crushed the French most of the time. Quiberon Bay proved the superiority of the British Navy. Even in previous engagements such as Vigo Bay, Royal Navy destroyed French, so Trafalgar can be argued to be an expected defeat for the French given the conditions
But I get the point, it was a major defeat that ended French ambitions and French were the superpower. And indeed was a brilliant victory under inferiority conditions and being won despite your admiral being killed in the beginning phase of the battle.
I missed the point on Tsushima, you are right.
By the way thanks for the book recommendation, as soon I can I will read it. Military history is a really interesting topic and I enjoy it a lot.
I see what you are saying and you are correct. The British Navy was the superior navy in terms of tactical metrics. On a ship to ship comparison they were far and away "the best" of the day.
We are comparing apples to oranges, LOL, and each of us is "right". Just about different things.
You can tie this back to an earlier war that is very much in vogue on the RIGHT these days, the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. Viewing the US as Athens and China as Sparta.
The Athenian Navy was the BEST OF ALL TIME at trireme warfare. There's no comparison to anyone else. Athens still lost to Sparta.
Because Sparta, financed by Persia, kept building fleets and throwing them at the Athenians. They lost, every time. Until they didn't. That was the end of Athens.
The Athenians couldn't replace their highly trained ship crews fast enough. Each "victory" weakened their fleet and eroded their superiority.
Tactical superiority wins battles, superior strategies win wars.
Personally I focus on strategy but I LOVE tactical minutiae. My favorite Avalon Hill game was Squad Leader.
This would be a fantastic ad! And it's terrifying.
Would LOVE for someone to put this together and put it on the medias. Very well done!!!
I'm glad you liked it. "Don't Look Up" used the asteroid as a metaphor for Global Warming. I decided it works better as quantified science.
The problem with Global Warming and Climate Change is that they are so nebulous. It's very difficult to explain them to people in a way they can immediately understand and visualize.
Everyone can visualize and understand 33 bombs per square mile of ocean on the planet.
Everyone can translate that image into the amount of heat building up in the oceans. The connection is explicit.
That heat in the Oceans is "Global Warming" made visible.
So, when you say that the amount of heat in the Oceans is going to double over the next 15 years. Suddenly, everyone can understand EXACTLY what that means.
Hi, I have problems with the Trafalgar and Tsushima examples. Even if France was a world power back then, British fleet had always been superior since the Spanish armada incident centuries ago, even before Trafalgar Nelson had already scored a major victory in The Nile, and even in what we can call the decline of the British Empire, in events such as WW2, the British fleet was still formidable and arguably the best navy at the start of the conflict and the second best navy at the end(just behind US Navy of course). Naval tradition in the British is very strong.
And Russian navy at no point in their history have been a top navy, Japan had already tested their fleet against the Chinese in the Yalu River.
We can see examples of how even in empires experiencing decline, their armed forces remain of high quality. The second example that comes to mind are The Spanish Tercios, even in the phase of decline of Spanish Empire, Tercios remained a formidable force that despite their defeat at Rocroi, they continued having some successes.
And, it kind of depends how much resilience a country has even after suffering major defeats. For example Rome. In both Punic Wars their armies and navies suffered catastrophic defeats. On the naval phase, Romans were lucky to be able to steal a Carthaginian ship, but in land defeats, such as Cannae. Rome time after time recovered and kept sending legions until Scipius defeated Carthage.
And here is my opinion as a guy that is not American.(I'm Mexican )Hope it's the same case with US Navy, given their tradition, the great commanding officers of WW2(btw, Nimitz should have had the full control of Pacific theatre, McArthur was such an overrated dumbass). As a non-american(Mexican here) that hates US interventionism, if I have to recognize something is that US has an incredible logistic capacity to deploy anywhere and their armed forces, even admitted my other NATO countries are pretty much the best. The only thing that can really defeat US is precisely the internal conflict and polarization, and also precisely the capitalist-consumerism system undermines your armed forces. Just look at the low recruitment rates. Either people is out of shape (unable to access the services that ensure their health and mainly Americans are opted to consume McDonalds garbage), or has decided that they no longer want to participate in eternal wars every decade,(and of course the shitty treatment that veterans receive when they return home after seeing things no man should see)
But, you probably know better given your past in the military as a SEAL
Oh happy day, a fellow military history enthusiast. I just tacked that bit on, I didn't expect any comments on it. Still, such a good comment has to be answered. I so rarely get to 'talk shop' these days.
The Brits had not been "superior" since the Spanish Armada. The Seven Years War with France was a brutal struggle across the globe that broke the French and almost broke the British. The knock on effects of that war led to the American Revolution and the French Revolution. Part of Napoleon's appeal with the mob was his promise to "Make France Great Again".
In many ways the Napoleonic Wars are a rematch of the Seven Year War. Much the same way that WWII can be viewed as a rematch of WWI.
Have you read Paul Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of Great Powers"? It makes clear how intense the struggle was and how close both sides were to breaking.
The Battle of the Nile cost Napoleon an army in Egypt and the flow of Egyptian wheat he hoped to secure for France. However, it did not destroy the French Main Battle Fleet. As long as that fleet remained a "force in being" the British did not control the Mediterranean.
Trafalgar was the "nail in the coffin" for the French fleet.
I have thoughts about your other points but need to call it a night.
About Tsushima. I think you are missing the point.
The Russo-Japanese War was farcical in many respects. The Russians were so overmatched. What was important about Tsushima was the shock it sent through the WHITE world. A "Non White" country of "inferior people" had defeated the navy of a WHITE Great Power.
The unexpectedness of it, after the European world watched with fascination for months as the Russian Main Battle Fleet sailed all the way from Europe to Asia. The press reporting on the Russian progress and pundits confidently predicting that the "little yellow monkeys" should be defeated quickly.
The shock of the Russian defeat made Japan's rise real to White Empire. A major naval defeat of the US fleet would, in many minds, signal a Great Power in terminal decline.
Oh, I did not explain myself well, I did not meant that British had always been superior as a whole, France in Napoleonic Wars had the best land army by far, and even in Seven Years Wars, Prussia arguably was the best land army.
But British naval fleet since Spanish armada has always been superior to the other naval fleets and has a consistent record of crushing the French Navy, that's what I meant, (even in conditions of inferiority in Land Warfare) of course The Seven Years War was brutal, but if you look at the naval engagements, Brits absolutely crushed the French most of the time. Quiberon Bay proved the superiority of the British Navy. Even in previous engagements such as Vigo Bay, Royal Navy destroyed French, so Trafalgar can be argued to be an expected defeat for the French given the conditions
But I get the point, it was a major defeat that ended French ambitions and French were the superpower. And indeed was a brilliant victory under inferiority conditions and being won despite your admiral being killed in the beginning phase of the battle.
I missed the point on Tsushima, you are right.
By the way thanks for the book recommendation, as soon I can I will read it. Military history is a really interesting topic and I enjoy it a lot.
I see what you are saying and you are correct. The British Navy was the superior navy in terms of tactical metrics. On a ship to ship comparison they were far and away "the best" of the day.
We are comparing apples to oranges, LOL, and each of us is "right". Just about different things.
You can tie this back to an earlier war that is very much in vogue on the RIGHT these days, the Peloponnesian War between Athens and Sparta. Viewing the US as Athens and China as Sparta.
The Athenian Navy was the BEST OF ALL TIME at trireme warfare. There's no comparison to anyone else. Athens still lost to Sparta.
Because Sparta, financed by Persia, kept building fleets and throwing them at the Athenians. They lost, every time. Until they didn't. That was the end of Athens.
The Athenians couldn't replace their highly trained ship crews fast enough. Each "victory" weakened their fleet and eroded their superiority.
Tactical superiority wins battles, superior strategies win wars.
Personally I focus on strategy but I LOVE tactical minutiae. My favorite Avalon Hill game was Squad Leader.