4 ms·

At what point did the appearance of military power diverge from actual military effectiveness? Guerilla warfare in the 18th century? It seems like the modern m

At what point did the appearance of military power diverge from actual military effectiveness? Guerilla warfare in the 18th century? It seems like the modern militaries are probably already well aware of these two separate things, to the point where there are probably two different conversations about Horizon 1/2/3, one for projecting the appearance of power for diplomatic leverage, and the other for wartime efficacy.

foota 10y ago
Projecting power isn't just about appearance, it's about being able to use your military even in small conflicts to enforce your policy.
- douche 10y ago
  The biggest problem in recent decades seems to be the reticence to actually pull the gloves off and really fight a war. War is one of those things you have to actually do, and not dick around with, to be successful. All that artificial "Rules of Engagement" provide is a framework for the enemy to hide behind.
  - Teever 10y ago
    > The biggest problem in recent decades seems to be the reticence to actually pull the gloves off and really fight a war. I guess that's probably true if your objective is to wage war and kill. If your objective is to prevent or minimize those things than it's probably not your biggest problem at all and is actually your biggest accomplishment.
    - douche 10y ago
      If you aren't willing to actually fight a war, then maybe you shouldn't fuck around and waste people's lives on a half-hearted adventure.
      - Teever 10y ago
        So you're arguing that we should kill more people to save people?
        douche 10y ago
        That is not in any way what I'm proposing. I'm saying that if you're going to fight a war in Vietnam, you should land the Marines at Haiphong and capture Hanoi, rather than idle away ten years and tens of thousands of American lives on a failed adventure, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians that died along the way. If you're going to topple the government of a middle eastern country, you need to actually stick out the occupation and build a structure that will stand on it's own, rather than descending into anarchy when you pull out. If you're not willing to invest in that, then perhaps you shouldn't invest in the initial "Shock and Awe" portion of the campaign. Moreover, 3000 years of history should be enough to convince anyone that invading Afghanistan is a terrible idea, maybe one step down from "launch an invasion of Russia in late summer."
        slv77 10y ago
        US rules of engagement were partially to prevent Chinese intervention in the Vietnam War. The Chinese already had 100,000 advisors in the country in an anti-aircraft role and a full scale invasion of Hanoi by US Marines would have almost certainly resulted in a response by the PLA. Even though the Chinese troops were poorly armed and poorly trained relative to US troops they had undergone some degree of moderization since the Korean War where they had fought the UN to a standstill. Given the logistical advantages of the Chinese to mass men and material (it was on their border vs half the world away) it isn't obvious the US would have prevailed in a escalated conflict. China was also a nuclear power by 1965 which was not true during the Korean War. But I don't think any of this disagrees with the main point of your comment which is don't intervene where the rules of engagement prevent you from winning.
      - gte525u 10y ago
        Wasn't that the whole takeaway of vietnam? - killing people != winning the war
  - angersock 10y ago
    What does the "really fight a war" phrase mean to you? Both Gulf wars saw thorough and decisive military victories by US and Coalition forces. That wasn't the problem. Are you referring to something like WW2, where the entire population is mobilized in the production of material for the war? Do you mean "total war"?
- Benjammer 10y ago
  Or is it about projecting _the idea_ that your military is able to be effective even in the smallest of scenarios?
  - angersock 10y ago
    No, no, projecting military power and "force projection" is very much a thing and isn't just about duping people into thinking you have a strong military: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection You just have your terminology wrong.
sliverstorm 10y ago
Carriers don't just appear powerful, they are. But their weaknesses are more pronounced in pitched conflict & wartime.

foota 10y ago

Projecting power isn't just about appearance, it's about being able to use your military even in small conflicts to enforce your policy.

douche 10y ago
The biggest problem in recent decades seems to be the reticence to actually pull the gloves off and really fight a war. War is one of those things you have to actually do, and not dick around with, to be successful. All that artificial "Rules of Engagement" provide is a framework for the enemy to hide behind.
- Teever 10y ago
  > The biggest problem in recent decades seems to be the reticence to actually pull the gloves off and really fight a war. I guess that's probably true if your objective is to wage war and kill. If your objective is to prevent or minimize those things than it's probably not your biggest problem at all and is actually your biggest accomplishment.
  - douche 10y ago
    If you aren't willing to actually fight a war, then maybe you shouldn't fuck around and waste people's lives on a half-hearted adventure.
    - Teever 10y ago
      So you're arguing that we should kill more people to save people?
      - douche 10y ago
        That is not in any way what I'm proposing. I'm saying that if you're going to fight a war in Vietnam, you should land the Marines at Haiphong and capture Hanoi, rather than idle away ten years and tens of thousands of American lives on a failed adventure, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians that died along the way. If you're going to topple the government of a middle eastern country, you need to actually stick out the occupation and build a structure that will stand on it's own, rather than descending into anarchy when you pull out. If you're not willing to invest in that, then perhaps you shouldn't invest in the initial "Shock and Awe" portion of the campaign. Moreover, 3000 years of history should be enough to convince anyone that invading Afghanistan is a terrible idea, maybe one step down from "launch an invasion of Russia in late summer."
        slv77 10y ago
        US rules of engagement were partially to prevent Chinese intervention in the Vietnam War. The Chinese already had 100,000 advisors in the country in an anti-aircraft role and a full scale invasion of Hanoi by US Marines would have almost certainly resulted in a response by the PLA. Even though the Chinese troops were poorly armed and poorly trained relative to US troops they had undergone some degree of moderization since the Korean War where they had fought the UN to a standstill. Given the logistical advantages of the Chinese to mass men and material (it was on their border vs half the world away) it isn't obvious the US would have prevailed in a escalated conflict. China was also a nuclear power by 1965 which was not true during the Korean War. But I don't think any of this disagrees with the main point of your comment which is don't intervene where the rules of engagement prevent you from winning.
    - gte525u 10y ago
      Wasn't that the whole takeaway of vietnam? - killing people != winning the war
- angersock 10y ago
  What does the "really fight a war" phrase mean to you? Both Gulf wars saw thorough and decisive military victories by US and Coalition forces. That wasn't the problem. Are you referring to something like WW2, where the entire population is mobilized in the production of material for the war? Do you mean "total war"?
Benjammer 10y ago
Or is it about projecting _the idea_ that your military is able to be effective even in the smallest of scenarios?
- angersock 10y ago
  No, no, projecting military power and "force projection" is very much a thing and isn't just about duping people into thinking you have a strong military: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection You just have your terminology wrong.

sliverstorm 10y ago

Carriers don't just appear powerful, they are. But their weaknesses are more pronounced in pitched conflict & wartime.