NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

[Tule]

I want to build a military realistic to my nations stats and factbooks... how should I start??

Look at your neighbors. Are they big strong and aggressive or small hippie states?
You might not need an army at all, or only a very small one.

Look at your geography. Are you an island state? Focus on building a navy. Is it flat? Focus on mechanized forces. etc.

Look at your economy. What can you afford?

Look at your demographics. How many soldiers do you need? How many can you field? If you have al ot of people relative to your enemies you can fight a war of annihilation, if you are small relative to your enemies you'll need to fight a war of erosion, or find an ally to protect you.

[North Arkana]

Apparently, in the grimdark future of 1961, Pvt. Helmut would have been eating some delicious food cubes under the cap of a Soviet mushroom cloud.

Ration cubes are like... prime futurist military rations stuff. The future is now, people!

[Lamoni]

Norway did ration cubes better.

[New Castillan Empire]

Now I'm starting to realize the disadvantages my military has.

While it does have FT tech, as well as galleon spaceships, airships, planes and a decent navy (which I have yet to write up), the tactics, basis and design of that tech is wayyy outdated.

You think I should switch it up or are 16th-to-18th-century tactics and formations combined with muzzleloading lasers that pierce like RPGs and lightsabers good enough?

[Hayo]

Now I'm starting to realize the disadvantages my military has.

While it does have FT tech, as well as galleon spaceships, airships, planes and a decent navy (which I have yet to write up), the tactics, basis and design of that tech is wayyy outdated.

You think I should switch it up or are 16th-century tactics and formations combined with muzzleloading lasers that pierce like RPGs and lightsabers good enough?

I mean...

If you want a "serious/realistic" military: Yes, you should change.

If you want a Warhammer 40K-esque, "rule of cool" military: Stay the same.

[North Arkana]

Now I'm starting to realize the disadvantages my military has.

While it does have FT tech, as well as galleon spaceships, airships, planes and a decent navy (which I have yet to write up), the tactics, basis and design of that tech is wayyy outdated.

You think I should switch it up or are 16th-to-18th-century tactics and formations combined with muzzleloading lasers that pierce like RPGs and lightsabers good enough?

If you aren't fighting at megameter ranges, you're doing it wrong.

[New Castillan Empire]

Now I'm starting to realize the disadvantages my military has.

While it does have FT tech, as well as galleon spaceships, airships, planes and a decent navy (which I have yet to write up), the tactics, basis and design of that tech is wayyy outdated.

You think I should switch it up or are 16th-to-18th-century tactics and formations combined with muzzleloading lasers that pierce like RPGs and lightsabers good enough?

If you aren't fighting at megameter ranges, you're doing it wrong.

Believe me, if your average infantryman can fire rounds as powerful as RPGs, I believe that could be possible. The Age of Discovery-era tactics are mainly there to balance out the OPness. I haven't even fully established the mechas though. Some of them are unneccessary and so out-of-place I don't even know if I'd need them.

Actually, if I faced another FT nation, I probably would.

[Crookfur]

Now I'm starting to realize the disadvantages my military has.

While it does have FT tech, as well as galleon spaceships, airships, planes and a decent navy (which I have yet to write up), the tactics, basis and design of that tech is wayyy outdated.

You think I should switch it up or are 16th-to-18th-century tactics and formations combined with muzzleloading lasers that pierce like RPGs and lightsabers good enough?

Are the tactics and formations required for any reason? Is there a technical reason driving the usage of muzzle loaders? What makes similar tech in the form of easily aimable rapid fire "modern" rifle form undesirable?

If you want to use pike and shot (16th to early 17th century stuff was quite different to what came in the 18th century) then just do it and rule of cool it as there probably isn't much to help explain such a backwards step in military theory and application.

[Fryske Ryk]

The old!NS guy who does this uses super!shields as his MacGuffin, so super!troopers form infantry squares and use their massed firepower to bust through the super!shields. So kind of like Dune but without the mutual atomization.

[Cerma]

How could the USA turn into an ultimate warrior society, embracing the war machine in its vigilant quest to preserve its empire?

What would this society look like? What would such an American people fathom?

[Zhouran]

How could the USA turn into an ultimate warrior society

>Warrior society

>In literally the [CURRENT YEAR]

The US would just simply turn into a third-world tribalistic war-torn wasteland, probably even balkanize.

[Cerma]

The US would just simply turn into a third-world tribalistic war-torn wasteland, probably even balkanize.

So then the conclusion is that the US cannot hold onto its empire, at least not by embracing militarism?

[Purpelia]

The US would just simply turn into a third-world tribalistic war-torn wasteland, probably even balkanize.

So then the conclusion is that the US cannot hold onto its empire, at least not by embracing militarism?

There is a difference between embracing militarism and becoming a warrior society. 80's america embraced militarism without becoming Sparta.

[Gallia-]

How could the USA turn into an ultimate warrior society, embracing the war machine in its vigilant quest to preserve its empire?

What would this society look like? What would such an American people fathom?

Do you know what these words mean?

80's america embraced militarism

No it didn't.

[Purpelia]

How could the USA turn into an ultimate warrior society, embracing the war machine in its vigilant quest to preserve its empire?

What would this society look like? What would such an American people fathom?

Do you know what these words mean?

80's america embraced militarism

No it didn't.

Any country that spends more on the military than on any other single point in their budget has embraced militarism.

[Gallia-]

Any country that spends more on the military than on any other single point in their budget

Then the USA is the least "militarist" of all societies. Defense spending usually sits down there with space exploration and exploratory technology subsidies.

The US would just simply turn into a third-world tribalistic (...) wasteland,

This is happening anyway.

[Purpelia]

They still invest more % of their GDP than any sensible nation.

[Gallia-]

They still invest more % of their GDP than any sensible nation.

The USA invests less than the Eastern European average.

However, it does invest more than is sensible on healthcare, to rather depressing outcomes at that.

[Cerma]

Do you know what these words mean?

What would a USA look like if it was sharply(or even mildly) more militaristic than as it is, currently? Could such a shift happen, how could it happen, etc.

Essentially that is what I intended to ask.

[Gallia-]

Do you know what these words mean?

What would a USA look like if it was sharply(or even mildly) more militaristic than as it is, currently?

It would look like the last time a Clinton was in office: depressed economic growth, large amounts of cruise missiles being thrown in far corners of the world, and maybe increased tax revenues. It would also be bombing Assad and threatening to bomb North Korea instead of kowtowing to it. Maybe a few other people would be getting bombed too. Depends on how far President Clinton can stretch the TLAM budget. So basically, Peak America 2.0 for about 4-8 years.

Is that the answer you were looking for?

[Purpelia]

They still invest more % of their GDP than any sensible nation.

The USA invests less than the Eastern European average.

However, it does invest more than is sensible on healthcare, to rather depressing outcomes at that.

But countries in Eastern Europe actually have a real threat to be afraid off. Well, as real as it gets these days anyway.

And there is literally no such thing as too much welfare.

[Gallia-]

The USA invests less than the Eastern European average.

However, it does invest more than is sensible on healthcare, to rather depressing outcomes at that.

But countries in Eastern Europe actually have a real threat to be afraid off.

No, they don't, unless by "countries" you mean "Narva, Estonia". 3-4% of GDP spending is fairly typical outside of pacifist countries. Singapore, another country that doesn't face any real threats, spends about as much as USA.

And there is literally no such thing as too much welfare.

The USA's healthcare system is worse than any other developed economy's on a cost:benefit scale.

[Purpelia]

No, they don't, unless by "countries" you mean "Narva, Estonia". 3-4% of GDP spending is fairly typical outside of pacifist countries. Singapore, another country that doesn't face any real threats, spends about as much as USA.

Sensible countries are pacifist unless there is someone breathing down their neck offering a constant threat of subjugation should they become such. Either you are an empire, you are under threat by someone or you don't need a strong military.

The USA's healthcare system is worse than any other developed economy's on a cost:benefit scale.

The fact they are using the money they do invest very badly does not change the fact that ultimately no matter how badly you use your money more welfare is always better.

[Gallia-]

Sensible countries are pacifist

Perhaps you confuse "sensible" with "suicidal" they both start with the letter "s" and have "l" near the end.

no matter how badly you use your money more welfare is always better.

This is why Africa is so prosperous. They take international welfare money and funnel it into mansions or something instead of improving their people's outcomes. Clearly better.

The USA just funnels its healthcare money into overpriced medications from India or China and fattening the wallets of corrupt insurers because it's too easy to sue doctors or w/e.

[Cerma]

Is that the answer you were looking for?

Yes. Much obliged.

I could have reworded the original question a bit, I suppose. By 'warrior society' I was more implying 'Israel' than anything. What would a militarist 'Israeli-like' American society look like given American principles and not being surrounded by hostile nations? But nevertheless, the bottom line was 'What would America do if it had less qualms about going to war.'

Which was answered.