6 ms·

I don't know how accurate they are, but a lot of the military analyst/journalist blogosphere (i.e. Tyler Rogoway, War is Boring, etc) have been pointing out tha

by caycep 9y ago

I don't know how accurate they are, but a lot of the military analyst/journalist blogosphere (i.e. Tyler Rogoway, War is Boring, etc) have been pointing out that that US Navy, with its nuclear blinders on, risks having its sub and carrier fleets badly disrupted by a swarm of newer, cheaper AIPs. While there are limitations in range and payload etc etc etc, the swedes were able to inflict disproportionate damage in war-games in their AIP sub. There are other thoughts on the current administration and their ability to see their way out of a Thucydides trap with a rising nation who also happens to be our largest trading partner...and the ability of the Pentagon to maintain primacy with the destruction of American STEM advantages...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
adventured 9y ago
The US doesn't need to maintain primacy, it has thousands of nuclear warheads. It needs to slash ~$250 billion off of its defense budget and invest that into infrastructure and healthcare over the next ten years instead. The US should pull back from trying to hold on to its status as the sole military superpower and focus that tax revenue on its own people. We gain absolutely nothing from trying to outpace the entire planet in regards to military dominance. Asia can deal with China (or not), Europe can deal with Russia (or not), the US should play a secondary role to whatever extent it can afford to (which is to say, it can't afford to do much and shouldn't be trying to). None of that is going to happen, of course. The US will ride the military superpower party to the end of the line, where it's financially forced to cut back. That won't take more than a decade or two to conclude at this point (given the soon-to-be routine $1+ trillion deficits due to inbound entitlement costs). The US will properly cede its European military position to European nations and it'll cede its Asia military position to Asian nations.
- microcolonel 9y ago
  > The US doesn't need to maintain primacy, it has thousands of nuclear warheads. A military whose first line of defence is nuclear weapons is not a functioning military. I don't think you want what you say you want. We all wish the military were cheaper, but that doesn't mean it should be at any cost.
  - paradite 9y ago
    I think thousands of nuclear warheads are pretty good military resources as a form or deterrence, much more effective than conventional weapons as a defensive measure.
    - CountSessine 9y ago
      So what happens when someone calls your nuclear bluff and you don't have a conventional armed forces? Especially when it's not an attack on the continental US? For example, what if China decided to invade Diego Garcia or Guam or some other strategic asset? Or even the Aleutian Islands? Would you really launch a retaliatory nuclear attack? Would you send John Kerry to the UN to wag his finger at the Chinese representative? Would you call the Chinese ambassador to the White House and tell him that you're very cross with his leaders?
      - ethbro 9y ago
        The Cold War taught us that all that really matters is when the other side thinks you'll use nuclear weapons.
        PatentTroll 9y ago
        Which is interesting because sane people know that we cannot use nuclear weapons against any nuclear armed country, it would be the end of times if we did. Or they did. So in that respect, maybe nuclear arms are entirely toothless. Or, think about this. Let's say that China or Russia does launch a preemptive nuclear strike on the US. Complete devastation ensured for the US. What's better, then? Also a desolated China or Russia? No. The optimal response would be to holster our own nukes and let at least some of the world continue to preserve the species, right? I mean, in that case we're already dead no matter what. Sure it sucks, but I'd rather take action to ensure the continuity of humanity than exact 'revenge'
        ethbro 9y ago
        That's you. Thankfully, China or Russia doesn't think people like you will be making the nuclear call. Which is one thing the anti-nuke, give-peace-a-chance crowd has always been absolutely stupid about. The entire idea of nuclear deterrence is predicated on continuously issuing as rabid statements as possible about your willingness to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for any strike (while simultaneously issuing statements that you never intend to use nukes as a first strike). Whether you would or would not actually use them, in the emphasis of Strangelove, it is essential that your potential adversaries have no suspicions that you might not use them. So any statements that don't sound like a madman with his or her finger on the button, just waiting for a chance to nuke the foreigners are actually incredibly dangerous and destabilizing (regardless of actual beliefs).
- cryptonector 9y ago
  Thousands of nuclear warheads you can't use to win a conventional war are of little use. They merely deter an all out nuclear war. They don't even deter isolated suitcase nuke attacks when those can be deniable. To maintain primacy (and we should discuss _why_ maintain primacy in a second) the U.S. need to have the best conventional capabilities as well. My money is or more autonomous, robotic vehicles: in the air (armed UAVs), on land (small robot tanks), and in the sea (small robotic AIP subs). As to why maintain primacy: because as much as I'm certain you dislike the U.S., it is the best hope we have for peace in this world. The Chinese are still bent on dominance and interested in various conquests. The Russians apparently still feel a desire for revanche. And the muslim world is increasing nuclear proliferation and state terrorism. The Pax Americana of the Cold War era was remarkable -- you might disagree and point to all the ill-advised interventions by the U.S., but those are as nothing compared to the levels of violence we have seen historically. At least until China democratizes and adopts closer-to-Western values, we must remain the foremost military power on Earth.
  - thisrod 9y ago
    > The Chinese are still bent on dominance and interested in various conquests. What evidence do you have for that, as opposed to this alternative hypothesis: 1. The Chinese have a bit of a thing about uninvited guests. C.f. world history from the industrial revolution until 1975, or go back a bit further to that Ghengis ratbag. 2. If any ininvited guests turn up in China in the next 30 years, they are, objectively, very likely to be Americans. Because a) who else can? b) go ask the Koreans, Vietnamese, Afghans, Iraqis, Phillipinos, pause for breath, Nicaraguans, Yemenis, Iranians, Indonesians, Somalians, Cambodians, ..., whose army it usually is that turns up in someone else's country. 3. Pfaffing around in their local seas is relatively cheap for the Chinese, and it provokes Americans to burn lots of money in order to "maintain primacy". Meanwhile, the Chinese get to save their money and build submarines. > At least until China democratizes Because, of course, external threats from the world hegemon are just the kind of setting where people have always been willing to give more open and democratic ways of life a try.
    - linkregister 9y ago
derefr 9y ago
My understanding is that the point of US nuclear submarines is strategic, rather than tactical. They aren't there to be "soldiers" in the naval theatre; they're there to be 1. hidden CIC nodes the enemy doesn't know to attack; 2. unpredictably-roving nuclear ICBM launch platforms which no amount of reconnaissance can paint as targets for pre-emptive strikes; 3. "sleeper agents" that can just enter a projected battlespace (e.g. foreign coastal waters) carrying medium-range missiles for quick engagement, then sit around for months in case said battlespace goes active, ready to throw those missiles out at a moment's notice. #1 can be achieved by short-submersion vessels. #2 can, theoretically, as well, but it's much more costly (more boats in shorter shifts) and less effective because change-outs are the weak link for discovery and predictability. But #3 just can't work for non-nuclear AIPs—and it's one of the major keys to strategic deterrence.
- gozur88 9y ago
  Your #3 isn't completely accurate. Nuclear attack submarines have a primary tactical role in that they're expected to destroy enemy ships and submarines with torpedoes. In peacetime they spend a lot of time shadowing vessels belonging to other countries collecting emissions and position data. And the land attack role isn't really about deterrence - that's what the boomers are for. Though I agree if you want to operate subs in far-flung seas you pretty much have to go with nuclear propulsion. Diesel subs (of which AIP are just the latest iteration) just don't have the legs. They're also not magical, as some people seem to think. You can detect them.

by caycep 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

adventured 9y ago

The US doesn't need to maintain primacy, it has thousands of nuclear warheads. It needs to slash ~$250 billion off of its defense budget and invest that into infrastructure and healthcare over the next ten years instead. The US should pull back from trying to hold on to its status as the sole military superpower and focus that tax revenue on its own people. We gain absolutely nothing from trying to outpace the entire planet in regards to military dominance. Asia can deal with China (or not), Europe can deal with Russia (or not), the US should play a secondary role to whatever extent it can afford to (which is to say, it can't afford to do much and shouldn't be trying to). None of that is going to happen, of course. The US will ride the military superpower party to the end of the line, where it's financially forced to cut back. That won't take more than a decade or two to conclude at this point (given the soon-to-be routine $1+ trillion deficits due to inbound entitlement costs). The US will properly cede its European military position to European nations and it'll cede its Asia military position to Asian nations.

microcolonel 9y ago
> The US doesn't need to maintain primacy, it has thousands of nuclear warheads. A military whose first line of defence is nuclear weapons is not a functioning military. I don't think you want what you say you want. We all wish the military were cheaper, but that doesn't mean it should be at any cost.
- paradite 9y ago
  I think thousands of nuclear warheads are pretty good military resources as a form or deterrence, much more effective than conventional weapons as a defensive measure.
  - CountSessine 9y ago
    So what happens when someone calls your nuclear bluff and you don't have a conventional armed forces? Especially when it's not an attack on the continental US? For example, what if China decided to invade Diego Garcia or Guam or some other strategic asset? Or even the Aleutian Islands? Would you really launch a retaliatory nuclear attack? Would you send John Kerry to the UN to wag his finger at the Chinese representative? Would you call the Chinese ambassador to the White House and tell him that you're very cross with his leaders?
    - ethbro 9y ago
      The Cold War taught us that all that really matters is when the other side thinks you'll use nuclear weapons.
      - PatentTroll 9y ago
        Which is interesting because sane people know that we cannot use nuclear weapons against any nuclear armed country, it would be the end of times if we did. Or they did. So in that respect, maybe nuclear arms are entirely toothless. Or, think about this. Let's say that China or Russia does launch a preemptive nuclear strike on the US. Complete devastation ensured for the US. What's better, then? Also a desolated China or Russia? No. The optimal response would be to holster our own nukes and let at least some of the world continue to preserve the species, right? I mean, in that case we're already dead no matter what. Sure it sucks, but I'd rather take action to ensure the continuity of humanity than exact 'revenge'
        ethbro 9y ago
        That's you. Thankfully, China or Russia doesn't think people like you will be making the nuclear call. Which is one thing the anti-nuke, give-peace-a-chance crowd has always been absolutely stupid about. The entire idea of nuclear deterrence is predicated on continuously issuing as rabid statements as possible about your willingness to use nuclear weapons in retaliation for any strike (while simultaneously issuing statements that you never intend to use nukes as a first strike). Whether you would or would not actually use them, in the emphasis of Strangelove, it is essential that your potential adversaries have no suspicions that you might not use them. So any statements that don't sound like a madman with his or her finger on the button, just waiting for a chance to nuke the foreigners are actually incredibly dangerous and destabilizing (regardless of actual beliefs).
cryptonector 9y ago
Thousands of nuclear warheads you can't use to win a conventional war are of little use. They merely deter an all out nuclear war. They don't even deter isolated suitcase nuke attacks when those can be deniable. To maintain primacy (and we should discuss _why_ maintain primacy in a second) the U.S. need to have the best conventional capabilities as well. My money is or more autonomous, robotic vehicles: in the air (armed UAVs), on land (small robot tanks), and in the sea (small robotic AIP subs). As to why maintain primacy: because as much as I'm certain you dislike the U.S., it is the best hope we have for peace in this world. The Chinese are still bent on dominance and interested in various conquests. The Russians apparently still feel a desire for revanche. And the muslim world is increasing nuclear proliferation and state terrorism. The Pax Americana of the Cold War era was remarkable -- you might disagree and point to all the ill-advised interventions by the U.S., but those are as nothing compared to the levels of violence we have seen historically. At least until China democratizes and adopts closer-to-Western values, we must remain the foremost military power on Earth.
- thisrod 9y ago
  > The Chinese are still bent on dominance and interested in various conquests. What evidence do you have for that, as opposed to this alternative hypothesis: 1. The Chinese have a bit of a thing about uninvited guests. C.f. world history from the industrial revolution until 1975, or go back a bit further to that Ghengis ratbag. 2. If any ininvited guests turn up in China in the next 30 years, they are, objectively, very likely to be Americans. Because a) who else can? b) go ask the Koreans, Vietnamese, Afghans, Iraqis, Phillipinos, pause for breath, Nicaraguans, Yemenis, Iranians, Indonesians, Somalians, Cambodians, ..., whose army it usually is that turns up in someone else's country. 3. Pfaffing around in their local seas is relatively cheap for the Chinese, and it provokes Americans to burn lots of money in order to "maintain primacy". Meanwhile, the Chinese get to save their money and build submarines. > At least until China democratizes Because, of course, external threats from the world hegemon are just the kind of setting where people have always been willing to give more open and democratic ways of life a try.
  - linkregister 9y ago

derefr 9y ago

My understanding is that the point of US nuclear submarines is strategic, rather than tactical. They aren't there to be "soldiers" in the naval theatre; they're there to be 1. hidden CIC nodes the enemy doesn't know to attack; 2. unpredictably-roving nuclear ICBM launch platforms which no amount of reconnaissance can paint as targets for pre-emptive strikes; 3. "sleeper agents" that can just enter a projected battlespace (e.g. foreign coastal waters) carrying medium-range missiles for quick engagement, then sit around for months in case said battlespace goes active, ready to throw those missiles out at a moment's notice. #1 can be achieved by short-submersion vessels. #2 can, theoretically, as well, but it's much more costly (more boats in shorter shifts) and less effective because change-outs are the weak link for discovery and predictability. But #3 just can't work for non-nuclear AIPs—and it's one of the major keys to strategic deterrence.

gozur88 9y ago
Your #3 isn't completely accurate. Nuclear attack submarines have a primary tactical role in that they're expected to destroy enemy ships and submarines with torpedoes. In peacetime they spend a lot of time shadowing vessels belonging to other countries collecting emissions and position data. And the land attack role isn't really about deterrence - that's what the boomers are for. Though I agree if you want to operate subs in far-flung seas you pretty much have to go with nuclear propulsion. Diesel subs (of which AIP are just the latest iteration) just don't have the legs. They're also not magical, as some people seem to think. You can detect them.