How's military science supposed to be an actual science?

How's military science supposed to be an actual science?
It feels like there's always just some big flavour of the decade idea that's not actually based on anything that the military thinkers just decide to go with until real world experience has shown it to be hot garbage, or until someone comes up with the next big idea.
Shit's worse than gender studies.

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    do you actually know what you're talking about at all?
    or did you just feel compelled to add some more text to the internet

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How's military science supposed to be an actual science?
    Just like with any other [insert name] science – by applying scientific methodologies when studying, researching and evolving the subject matter.
    >It feels like there's always just some big flavour of the decade idea that's not actually based on anything that the military thinkers just decide to go with until real world experience has shown it to be hot garbage, or until someone comes up with the next big idea.
    That's how it works in the domain of theories. Practical application is a completely different matter that doesn't concern academia that much. Just to give you an idea, something like realtime ray-tracing and neural networks were just a meme in computer science during the previous century, but with today's hardware advances both started to only recently apply practically on a large scale.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It feels like there's always just some big flavour of the decade idea that's not actually based on anything that the thinkers just decide to go with until real world experience has shown it to be hot garbage, or until someone comes up with the next big idea.
    This is academia in general. Scientific fields change their consensus one death at a time, when some old, respected authority finally kicks the bucket and everyone can move on to what's actually viable instead of what gets you funding.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Basically string theory in a nutshell.
      It has not been able to provide any empirical evidence for itself, so everybody that's reputable have moved on except for the morons that have their entire lives works based on it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ahh, a fellow loop quantum gravity homie
        frick strings lol

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >t feels like there's always just some big flavour of the decade idea that's not actually based on anything
    In my experience, this is how science works as well, at least for the last 30 years that I have been in it

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >How's military science supposed to be an actual science?
    Well it's just theory and practice, isn't it? You come up with a hypothesis based on previous experience and then test it and see if reality matches the theory, and if reality diverges from theory, then the theory is wrong. It's a constant evolutionary loop.

    >Shit's worse than gender studies.
    I never took any gender studies classes but creative types can have more fun with it than they're given credit for around here, the question of "how do men respond to changing roles?" as something to study for example is pretty relatable as a topic.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I kinda want to watch Barbie now...

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The scientific side of it concerns logistics and timetables, mostly.
    Man hours and calories to push forward a line of ammunition bunkers.
    Can you supply X-sized operation with Y-number of trucks and roads?
    If this attack goes poorly, does your arithmetic say your guys can withdraw safely on their own or would you need to commit even more forces just to cover the retreat of tje broken forces?
    Let's game out the ripple effect of a disaster here, or there.
    Do we have the means to support a local tactical advance, or would advanced troops get pinned without forthcoming reinforcement? Maybe it's best to just sit pretty in that sector even if an opportunity preaents itself momentarily. Let's crunch some time, distance, and quantities...

    Stuff like that.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You've just explained every social science. The goal however, is to promote the study of the art writ large, so that theories can be developed, implemented, tested, modified, and tested some more. A functioning academy should be an iterative, feedback driven process, not dogmatic indocrination.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    FYI, West Point does not teach Military Science. That is an ROTC thing.

    West Point teaches History of the Military Art.

    https://courses.westpoint.edu/crse_details.cfm?crse_nbr=HI302&int_crse_eff_acad_yr=2022&int_crse_eff_term=1

    That’s why West Point teaches winners. Pic very related.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      See the drones the Ukies are using? Military scientists are actively studying the war to adapt the lessons learnt. Grunts only need to know how to operate and maintain their weapons. Officers need to be on the cutting edge of technology, tactics and strategem. Your "winners" are grunts. There's a reason the US Military has strong ties with Technology companies and academia. Remember, nukes, jet engines, radar, AI were all "academic" in the past.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Of course there’s science in the military field, just like there’s science in cooking. Also like cooking, there’s too many variables to call it an exact science. You have to feel the battle space the same way a great chef feels food when cooking.

        Its an art.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >a science, but not an exact science, like cooking
          Yeah... yeah that sounds about right...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Deeply neglected and underrated post

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Cooking isn't a science.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Cooking isn't a science.
            If you mean "how to make good food", then I agree. However, everything that's related to cooking is fundamentally chemistry. There's also molecular gastronomy, which is basically nerds thinking up cools ways of doing shit to food.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >molecular gastronomy
              used to mean using chemistry and physics to understand what precisely happens when food is cooked, which was previously only intuited by generations of chefs
              this is how, for example, the Maillard reaction was discovered, studied and applied
              it was pretty cool back then

              nowadays however the term is used and misused for all that pointless fancy showbiz shit fine dining restaurants do to squeeze more dollars out of eating, like smoke effects

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Don’t you have more dicks to suck and automatic promotions to brag about on linkedin ringknocker

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A (You) for your imperial hubris, Magna Strategos.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's never a major of field of study that I've ever seen. It's just the generic term for AROTC classes that is standardized in every college catalogue. There are only like 24 hours of coursework total, would not be possible to get a degree in it.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Shit's worse than gender studies.

    you have no idea what you're talking about, and i hope you realize that when you're body gets completely mutilated by things beyond your comprehension.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What is Tungsten Rain but small, spherical scalpels creating neo-veganas across a variety of surfaces?

      I kinda want to watch Barbie now...

      Barbie is a love song to exploitation and privilege cloaked in a paper-thin veneer of second-wave feminism.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Its not. Butter sticks are just as moronic as privates.
    In a prefect world only enlisted sergeants should be able to have the privilege of attempting to be an officer.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The problem with pulling your officers from only enlisted pools is 1. The age issue on E-6+ means they’ll often get out by the time they leave the platoon level for good instead of growing as they progress higher into the ranks and 2. Although mustangs are awesome and will tell a commander to suck his balls some of them still think like an NCO and occasionally drift out of their lane from old habits

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The problem with pulling your officers from only enlisted pools is 1. The age issue on E-6+ means they’ll often get out by the time they leave the platoon level for good instead of growing as they progress higher into the ranks and 2. Although mustangs are awesome and will tell a commander to suck his balls some of them still think like an NCO and occasionally drift out of their lane from old habits

      >The problem with pulling your officers from only enlisted pools is
      you now have to pay ALL your junior officers an extra 3 years' seniority, or they will quit

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Start by reading Jomini. He's exactly the kind quantized autistic babyfood dorks like you need to see before admitting anything is legitimate.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Jomini
      He was one of Napoleon's favs. You call him autistic babyfood, yet he was one of Nappy's favs. Bar was set much lower back then?
      If you suggest Jomini as a starter, would you also suggest the Kriegspiele of Reißwitz and Tschitschwitz?
      I'm not OP, but if you're well-read I'd like your impressions.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Seconded

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Military science is closer to old-school engineering in how it isn't technically empirical by its nature: take for instance, the statement that a 13.2×92mmSR Mauser 1918 T-Gewehr anti-tank rifle could penetrate armor 1 inch thick at a range of 250 yards. Armor quality varies wildly now and then, so in reality a Mauser might go through up to two inches of shoddily-made late war German pot metal or deflect if attempting to punch a hole through quality HY-80 as was used by the US in ship building. A 37mm gun might punch a hole through the side of a badly-cast Panther's turret or hardly so much as scratch it if it was built earlier in its line, so the statement such weapons couldn't penetrate a Panther weren't so much scientific as they were a friendly suggestion not to test your luck.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >It feels like
      you're a moron

      oh, it's wholly empirical, just with massive significance issues

      social science (and thus military science by extension) gets a bad rep, because unlike natural sciences, human beings react back.

      this

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    social science (and thus military science by extension) gets a bad rep, because unlike natural sciences, human beings react back.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It feels like
    that sure is a scientific way to spout your opinion

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It feels like there's always just some big flavour of the decade idea that's not actually based on anything that the military thinkers just decide to go with until real world experience has shown it to be hot garbage, or until someone comes up with the next big idea.
    Yeah thats science. Welcome to science.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Science means repeatable results, which you can do in training but can hardly do that in combat. Fortunately, we live in an age where most things can be recorded and should be recorded so they can be studied. But you CANNOT learn warfare in a classroom, if you could then grunts could just sit and watch power points all day. In combat sports you know how you get good at something? you fricking practice it. I could get into the differences between training and practice but I think my point is made.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *