8 ms·

Likely another example of how bureaucracies become complacent, increasingly incompetent, and begin to structurally fail until some sort of catalyzing external e

by jayess 9y ago

Likely another example of how bureaucracies become complacent, increasingly incompetent, and begin to structurally fail until some sort of catalyzing external event forces a restructuring and systemic reset. As the saying goes, nothing changes until it has to. The military is a bureaucracy like any other, from personal experience. The problem with government bureaucracies is that there's no market pressure to fix things. Failure is rewarded and even encouraged since there is no real consequence.

empath75 9y ago
I worry that the us is going to have some kind of Pearl Harbor type event that our military is not going to be capable of defending against. A lot of people assume that our forces are invulnerable but a large part of the peace we've been able to project has been because it's rewarding to work with us and risky to work against us. The current political situation seems to be reversing that calculus and the consequences could be dire.
- random023987 9y ago
  > I worry that the us is going to have some kind of Pearl Harbor type event that our military is not going to be capable of defending against. That's going to be when $4 billion aircraft carriers are sunk by $250,000 sea-skimmer anti-ship missiles launched by the dozens.
  - spitfire 9y ago
    That's already happened. Virtually. See the millennium challenge. So what it happens there'll be very clear documentation that they were aware of the vulnerabilities, but ignored them.
  - tcbawo 9y ago
    Hopefully (perhaps?), there is a classified answer to that
    - Jach 9y ago
      The unclassified answer: nukes.
  - Clubber 9y ago
    Yes, all our surface ships are mostly for show and to attack weaker nations, patrol shipping lanes, etc. In a real war with a major power, most of them would be sunk in a few weeks. Our real fleet is under water. We're really The only country left that really has them (carriers). We're #1 with carriers (11). Italy is #2 with (2) active carriers. There are 6 other countries with a single carrier. A big waste of money considering they are so vulnerable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_c... http://www.businessinsider.com/r-special-report-aircraft-carriers-championed-by-trump-are-vulnerable-to-attack-2017-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/r-special-report-aircraft-car...
    - arethuza 9y ago
      The Russians have already mocked the UK's new carriers as "large convenient targets". Sinking of one of these carriers by the Russians also features in a (not particularly good) novel by a retired UK general about a war with Russia.
    - lambdadmitry 9y ago
      The vulnerability of supercarriers is a myth. See [1]. TL;DR: ocean is so big that it's very hard to locate and keep track of a carrier group, especially when it takes active measures to avoid location. [1]: http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/aircraft-carrier-invulnerability.pdf http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/aircraf...
      - throwawayjava 9y ago
        I have to agree with this line from the report you linked: "However, it is a reasonable assumption that adversaries will eventually devise targeting techniques, especially in the littoral areas adjacent to their homelands" If China wanted to, they could develop the capability to track aircraft carriers -- especially within striking distance of the mainland. But there's a much larger implicit assumption threaded throughout the report -- the assumption that our aircraft carriers will be cruising at full speed and on high alert in prepared and competent battle groups at time of attack. The assumptions of a maximally defensive posture and extreme competence are present in virtually every argument advanced by the report. The most significant US naval defeat -- in which damn near the entire Pacific fleet was wiped out -- suggests that a full threat assessment should relax most or all of those assumptions. Particularly given the article under discussion.
  - lambdadmitry 9y ago
    It's not happening because to launch missiles and guide them to the target you need to know where target is. Given the speed of a carrier group, the vastness of the ocean and the fact that everything above horizon will get shot it's no easy task at all.
jackmott 9y ago
Indeed the world would be much better with privatized armies.Nothing like profit incentive for war.
- jayess 9y ago
  That's not at all what I was saying.
- freech 9y ago
  This but unironically.
- mythrwy 9y ago
  Meh. I hear robots will be taking those jobs also.
- flatfilefan 9y ago
  only true when your population is stagnating
nradov 9y ago
Yes the US Navy hasn't had to face a competent naval opponent in decades. Their last major surface battle was a small strike against Iran in 1988, and those ill-equipped fanatics weren't exactly the varsity team. Last time the US Navy was in that position was in 1941. They were complacent and convinced that they were the best at everything. The Japanese Navy gave them a rude awakening. Eventually the bureaucracy turned things around but it cost a lot of lives.
- colechristensen 9y ago
  The Navy does quite a lot without making war. The logistics and organization required just to keep ships afloat and moving around the world requires a lot of sophistication to function properly. An aircraft carrier is a small city that needs to be fed, supplied, powered, etc. which isn't a trivial task.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    The question is whether we need to have a global empire that requires the vast majority of the worlds tonnage of aircraft carriers, evidence for it is sorely lacking.
    - colechristensen 9y ago
      The seas are free and it's been 72 years since there was a major war anywhere in the world. Civil wars, proxy wars, and spats here and there, but there has been no war where thoroughly modern nations actually fought for their survival. The peace comes through American/NATO military strategy. Plenty of it has been stupid, mind you, but we've kept the world peace overall. Though NATO we are in a large part the armed forces of Europe. They could certainly be a superpower with an equal military (and more people), but it isn't in America's, Europe's, or the world's interest to have both an American and European superpower – that sort of thing breeds conflict which isn't necessary or desired. Europe also isn't as stable or as old as America (this seems silly today, but the governments and borders of Europe haven't gotten age on them at all, and it's hard to imagine Europe actually attaining the unity necessary any time soon). So here we are. We have big aircraft carriers that in a real shooting war with a comparable adversary would be useless, but that's not the point of them. They're about projecting NATO power around the world assuming that those sorts of wars aren't possible any more. Nuclear strikes and carriers at the beginning of that potential war makes it so costly to everyone that no one will start it. So we have peace. You can think all you want about the potentials that haven't happened, and you can complain, sometimes rightfully, about the failures of American foreign policy, but you cannot deny that we have peace. Part of that is because we build gigantic ridiculous ships.

by jayess 9y ago

empath75 9y ago

I worry that the us is going to have some kind of Pearl Harbor type event that our military is not going to be capable of defending against. A lot of people assume that our forces are invulnerable but a large part of the peace we've been able to project has been because it's rewarding to work with us and risky to work against us. The current political situation seems to be reversing that calculus and the consequences could be dire.

random023987 9y ago
> I worry that the us is going to have some kind of Pearl Harbor type event that our military is not going to be capable of defending against. That's going to be when $4 billion aircraft carriers are sunk by $250,000 sea-skimmer anti-ship missiles launched by the dozens.
- spitfire 9y ago
  That's already happened. Virtually. See the millennium challenge. So what it happens there'll be very clear documentation that they were aware of the vulnerabilities, but ignored them.
- tcbawo 9y ago
  Hopefully (perhaps?), there is a classified answer to that
  - Jach 9y ago
    The unclassified answer: nukes.
- Clubber 9y ago
  Yes, all our surface ships are mostly for show and to attack weaker nations, patrol shipping lanes, etc. In a real war with a major power, most of them would be sunk in a few weeks. Our real fleet is under water. We're really The only country left that really has them (carriers). We're #1 with carriers (11). Italy is #2 with (2) active carriers. There are 6 other countries with a single carrier. A big waste of money considering they are so vulnerable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_c... http://www.businessinsider.com/r-special-report-aircraft-carriers-championed-by-trump-are-vulnerable-to-attack-2017-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/r-special-report-aircraft-car...
  - arethuza 9y ago
    The Russians have already mocked the UK's new carriers as "large convenient targets". Sinking of one of these carriers by the Russians also features in a (not particularly good) novel by a retired UK general about a war with Russia.
  - lambdadmitry 9y ago
    The vulnerability of supercarriers is a myth. See [1]. TL;DR: ocean is so big that it's very hard to locate and keep track of a carrier group, especially when it takes active measures to avoid location. [1]: http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/aircraft-carrier-invulnerability.pdf http://www.lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/aircraf...
    - throwawayjava 9y ago
      I have to agree with this line from the report you linked: "However, it is a reasonable assumption that adversaries will eventually devise targeting techniques, especially in the littoral areas adjacent to their homelands" If China wanted to, they could develop the capability to track aircraft carriers -- especially within striking distance of the mainland. But there's a much larger implicit assumption threaded throughout the report -- the assumption that our aircraft carriers will be cruising at full speed and on high alert in prepared and competent battle groups at time of attack. The assumptions of a maximally defensive posture and extreme competence are present in virtually every argument advanced by the report. The most significant US naval defeat -- in which damn near the entire Pacific fleet was wiped out -- suggests that a full threat assessment should relax most or all of those assumptions. Particularly given the article under discussion.
- lambdadmitry 9y ago
  It's not happening because to launch missiles and guide them to the target you need to know where target is. Given the speed of a carrier group, the vastness of the ocean and the fact that everything above horizon will get shot it's no easy task at all.

jackmott 9y ago

Indeed the world would be much better with privatized armies.Nothing like profit incentive for war.

jayess 9y ago
That's not at all what I was saying.
freech 9y ago
This but unironically.
mythrwy 9y ago
Meh. I hear robots will be taking those jobs also.
flatfilefan 9y ago
only true when your population is stagnating

nradov 9y ago

Yes the US Navy hasn't had to face a competent naval opponent in decades. Their last major surface battle was a small strike against Iran in 1988, and those ill-equipped fanatics weren't exactly the varsity team. Last time the US Navy was in that position was in 1941. They were complacent and convinced that they were the best at everything. The Japanese Navy gave them a rude awakening. Eventually the bureaucracy turned things around but it cost a lot of lives.

colechristensen 9y ago
The Navy does quite a lot without making war. The logistics and organization required just to keep ships afloat and moving around the world requires a lot of sophistication to function properly. An aircraft carrier is a small city that needs to be fed, supplied, powered, etc. which isn't a trivial task.
- valuearb 9y ago
  The question is whether we need to have a global empire that requires the vast majority of the worlds tonnage of aircraft carriers, evidence for it is sorely lacking.
  - colechristensen 9y ago
    The seas are free and it's been 72 years since there was a major war anywhere in the world. Civil wars, proxy wars, and spats here and there, but there has been no war where thoroughly modern nations actually fought for their survival. The peace comes through American/NATO military strategy. Plenty of it has been stupid, mind you, but we've kept the world peace overall. Though NATO we are in a large part the armed forces of Europe. They could certainly be a superpower with an equal military (and more people), but it isn't in America's, Europe's, or the world's interest to have both an American and European superpower – that sort of thing breeds conflict which isn't necessary or desired. Europe also isn't as stable or as old as America (this seems silly today, but the governments and borders of Europe haven't gotten age on them at all, and it's hard to imagine Europe actually attaining the unity necessary any time soon). So here we are. We have big aircraft carriers that in a real shooting war with a comparable adversary would be useless, but that's not the point of them. They're about projecting NATO power around the world assuming that those sorts of wars aren't possible any more. Nuclear strikes and carriers at the beginning of that potential war makes it so costly to everyone that no one will start it. So we have peace. You can think all you want about the potentials that haven't happened, and you can complain, sometimes rightfully, about the failures of American foreign policy, but you cannot deny that we have peace. Part of that is because we build gigantic ridiculous ships.