17 ms·

A modern "great war" would require countries of relatively equal military industrial power, so either it would be a great war without the US involved, i.e. Chin

A modern "great war" would require countries of relatively equal military industrial power, so either it would be a great war without the US involved, i.e. China/India, Russia/China (with caveats), etc. In those situations the countries may temporarily forgo the use of nuclear weapons, at least until one side is pressed beyond the point of rational response. I'd also suggest the last time countries were so dominant in certain military areas, they didn't overlap as much as they do today, so open conflict was easier to maintain. In the early 1800's France was the undisputed world leader when it came to land based combat, while the British maintained a serious advantage at sea. Today, the US is undisputed in all 3 categories, land, air, sea, and a 4th if you count space. If another country were able to take a commanding lead in at least 1 of those areas, perhaps we could see a high intensity conflict involving the US, however until that happens, there isn't much of a point. Minor Edit: This isn't intended as support of the current situation.

aqme28 8y ago
I wonder if cybersecurity could be counted as a 5th area, and if so, how far behind the US is.
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  No, is not for you the worrying. US is best in all the cybers. Da, is good, comrade, is good.
  - dang 8y ago
    Please don't do this here.
- jcranmer 8y ago
  The answer to the last part is "the US is probably in the lead or at least competitive to the lead." Keep in mind that Stuxnet is generally figured to be a joint American/Israeli cyberweapon.
  - isostatic 8y ago
    Offensive and defensive capability.
  - jackpirate 8y ago
    The US is clearly in the lead wrt cyber weapons, but it also clearly has the most to lose. Whether the lead balances out the increased threat is anyone's guess.
  - VikingCoder 8y ago
    The common use of SSNs, the continued existence of Credit Card numbers, and the Equifax hack make me gravely concerned that the Federal Government is not helping us harden our cyber defense.
- ImprovedSilence 8y ago
  Thats a great point, and quite possibly how the next war would be fought. I picture some Fight Club esque scenario where all the banks get wiped out. Not from bombs, more from a cyber point of view, but could you imagine the loss of faith even a smallish attack could cause. FUD is a heavy hitter in wars.
  - VikingCoder 8y ago
    I highly recommend the novels Daemon and Freedom by Daniel Suarez, where he shows highly plausible attacks on our digital infrastructure.
everdev 8y ago
A counterpoint would be examining each country's idea of "acceptable losses". If losing 1 major city to nuclear weapons is considered unacceptable, then the major nuclear power are essentially on equal footing. Nuclear deterrence seems to be so effective because no nation to date has seemed to be willing to trade 1 of their cities for 2+ of their enemies.
- dwiel 8y ago
  Why just 1?
  - everdev 8y ago
    It was an example to show how a country with a chance of landing even 1 nuclear missle successfully is on equal military footing with a country that can land hundreds assuming the stronger country does not see losing any of their cities as an acceptable risk.
- teeray 8y ago
  The trouble is that opponents can mount a response while the attack is in progress. Information asymmetries would force a defender to assume the worst once they see the first missile in the air and launch their entire arsenal before their counter-attack capability was destroyed. It becomes a feedback loop when the aggressor is forced to assume they'll be met with the defender's entire arsenal.
  - candiodari 8y ago
    Fortunately this is not true. Actually destroying retaliatory capability requires a sustained barrage of hundreds of nuclear weapons, the first rocket will definitely not do it. And while a single rocket will trigger a return strike with a nuclear weapon it will not trigger an all-out response. If you ever get the chance to read old declassified nuclear attack plans against a city, you will see the same. A single nuclear weapon ... just doesn't do it. Those plans involve starting out with something like 10 nuclear explosions (not even directly against the city itself, rather on supporting infrastructure), and then one more every hour or so for 48 hours or even weeks (these plans are/were made for most large cities, and even for US cities where the likely plans for Russian nuclear attacks are created by US to allow for better preparations). In some ways what you see in the first episode of Battlestar Galactica is somewhat accurate. First, dozens of nuclear explosions make an effective response impossible (e.g. military installations, runways, important bridges, train lines, communication, ...), then a methodical "sweep" with nuclear explosions of the entire city. This cannot be done with one, or even 10, nuclear bombs. And even pretty bad radar systems can tell the difference between one and tens/hundreds of rockets. So whilst this is a concern, it can and is eliminated with proper infrastructure and planning. There will not be information asymmetry once a nuclear attack actually starts happening.
us-throw1 8y ago
Are you really sure that the US is undisputed in those 4 categories? A list of obvious weaknesses: * The US economy and industrial power is dependent on IT and brittle supply chains. Nobody knows how much the cyber infrastructure holding this up is already compromised. * Russian S-400s can already deny air superiority to Israeli planes, which are not far behind US planes. * How does the US have space superiority when there is no ASAT defense besides MAD? * The US has not been able to suppress a rebellion in Afghanistan with trillions of dollars and 17 years. Maybe in an actual war their hands would be untied, so this isn't the best point. * The US Navy loses war-games to swarm attacks and is just now a decade later deploying solutions to this. When was the last time US ships actually had to fight? Vietnam? * The US has increasing ethnic and social conflicts, not to mention the potential fifth column of residents with ties to enemy powers. * Barely half of US fighter planes are combat ready at any given moment. The trillion dollar F-35 had to be flown with VFR the first time it crossed the IDL. Who knows what else is lurking in that software?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- AcerbicZero 8y ago
  I can happily go point by point here, but my original comment wasn't intended to suggest I agreed with the current state of world military balance and shouldn't be taken as implicit support of US policy. That said - * The S-400 is an impressive system. The Russians have so built ~300 of them, and like any system, the soft factors are more important than the paper facts suggest. Training, deployment, doctrine, and strategic/tactical goals would greatly affect the viability of it on any modern battlefield. * Space Superiority is more than just ASAT capabilities, but its an area that few other countries have ever even attempted, and with the US's dominance in rocket technology (arguably anyway) and high altitude laser platforms, I'm fairly confident it would be a stalemate at best, with even the closest competitor. I would agree its an area of US defense that will need special attention over the next ~10 years. * Insurgency =/= Great War. * OIF was heavily supported by carrier based aircraft, and there are exactly zero countries that posses a modern enough navel force to threaten US control of the actual blue water areas. US Submarine technology is decades ahead of everyone else at this point. There are concern developments in this area, but again, we're talking "Great War" * True point. Wars tend to get people pointed in the same direction though. Especially "Great Wars" * US pilots put in more seat time than every other country combined. This is a factor that cannot be overstated. Putting 10x the number of the worlds best plane in the air means nothing if the actual operator cannot leverage those tools effectively. In the end, these are all great points as to why the US has room to improve its lead, but none of them really address the core point which is that the US is currently the undisputed leader in almost every military category, and any "Great War" involving the US would be a very lopsided affair. You're more than welcome to pick your challenger and we can see how long it takes me to make a list twice as long with their problems, although I can't guarantee I'll actually spend the time doing that today :)
hrktb 8y ago
Another great war could mean at least one country preparing for it and building weapons in advance. As of now the US have the greatest army, but if let’s say China were to prepare for it for enough time in a somewhat stealthy way, couldn’t it bring the USA into a long and dirty foght ?
- cthalupa 8y ago
  >As of now the US have the greatest army, but if let’s say China were to prepare for it for enough time in a somewhat stealthy way, couldn’t it bring the USA into a long and dirty foght ? Well, this is one of the reasons a Great War is unlikely - how are you going to do this? Even if you build things up slowly, you still have to store them somewhere. You have to train people. There is no way to create a military force capable of fighting a Great War in today's age without it being obvious. Which isn't to say that build up can't happen - it's just not going to be a surprise to anyone.
  - goatlover 8y ago
    And it's not going to get very far before the nuclear option gets trotted out. What good is an invasion force if the other side feels threatened enough to start nuclear retaliation?
    - stevenwoo 8y ago
      I can remember folks in the Reagan adminstration regularly touted the possibility of winning a nuclear war and used that sort of rhetoric in elections. The other part of that is the fundamentalist Christians in the USA who believe in the literal interpretation of Revelations so for them there is greater glory in armageddon that begins with a conflict in Israel. And in power now, John Bolton is one of those guys who thinks we can win a nuclear war and need simply need to outbuild the other guys.
      - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
        I will say it is weird when it seems to make sense to be more scared of the people on your own side than the people on the enemy's side. Perhaps they have folks just as scary, though.
Yetanfou 8y ago
The US carrier force could be blown out of the water by modern electric submarines [1]. The chance of Sweden starting a war against the US is not all that great - this mouse does not roar - but the same or similar technology (Stirling engines, fuel cells, a boatload of 18650 cells running a sub, etc) are available to parties which might stand to gain more from such a conflict. Replacing a carrier takes years, blowing one up takes a few minutes. Were I in command of the US carrier fleet I would be very mindful of this threat and make sure I always have the fleet dispersed with at least one battle group somewhere behind 'safe' lines. [1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/swedens-super-stealth-submarines-are-so-lethal-they-sank-us-18383 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/swedens-super-ste... (and many other similar articles elsewhere)
- abandonliberty 8y ago
  Modern torpedoes are quite impressive, do damage via cavitation. Not sure how detectable they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV8MF-440xg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV8MF-440xg

aqme28 8y ago

I wonder if cybersecurity could be counted as a 5th area, and if so, how far behind the US is.

VikingCoder 8y ago
No, is not for you the worrying. US is best in all the cybers. Da, is good, comrade, is good.
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't do this here.
jcranmer 8y ago
The answer to the last part is "the US is probably in the lead or at least competitive to the lead." Keep in mind that Stuxnet is generally figured to be a joint American/Israeli cyberweapon.
- isostatic 8y ago
  Offensive and defensive capability.
- jackpirate 8y ago
  The US is clearly in the lead wrt cyber weapons, but it also clearly has the most to lose. Whether the lead balances out the increased threat is anyone's guess.
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  The common use of SSNs, the continued existence of Credit Card numbers, and the Equifax hack make me gravely concerned that the Federal Government is not helping us harden our cyber defense.
ImprovedSilence 8y ago
Thats a great point, and quite possibly how the next war would be fought. I picture some Fight Club esque scenario where all the banks get wiped out. Not from bombs, more from a cyber point of view, but could you imagine the loss of faith even a smallish attack could cause. FUD is a heavy hitter in wars.
- VikingCoder 8y ago
  I highly recommend the novels Daemon and Freedom by Daniel Suarez, where he shows highly plausible attacks on our digital infrastructure.

everdev 8y ago

A counterpoint would be examining each country's idea of "acceptable losses". If losing 1 major city to nuclear weapons is considered unacceptable, then the major nuclear power are essentially on equal footing. Nuclear deterrence seems to be so effective because no nation to date has seemed to be willing to trade 1 of their cities for 2+ of their enemies.

dwiel 8y ago
Why just 1?
- everdev 8y ago
  It was an example to show how a country with a chance of landing even 1 nuclear missle successfully is on equal military footing with a country that can land hundreds assuming the stronger country does not see losing any of their cities as an acceptable risk.
teeray 8y ago
The trouble is that opponents can mount a response while the attack is in progress. Information asymmetries would force a defender to assume the worst once they see the first missile in the air and launch their entire arsenal before their counter-attack capability was destroyed. It becomes a feedback loop when the aggressor is forced to assume they'll be met with the defender's entire arsenal.
- candiodari 8y ago
  Fortunately this is not true. Actually destroying retaliatory capability requires a sustained barrage of hundreds of nuclear weapons, the first rocket will definitely not do it. And while a single rocket will trigger a return strike with a nuclear weapon it will not trigger an all-out response. If you ever get the chance to read old declassified nuclear attack plans against a city, you will see the same. A single nuclear weapon ... just doesn't do it. Those plans involve starting out with something like 10 nuclear explosions (not even directly against the city itself, rather on supporting infrastructure), and then one more every hour or so for 48 hours or even weeks (these plans are/were made for most large cities, and even for US cities where the likely plans for Russian nuclear attacks are created by US to allow for better preparations). In some ways what you see in the first episode of Battlestar Galactica is somewhat accurate. First, dozens of nuclear explosions make an effective response impossible (e.g. military installations, runways, important bridges, train lines, communication, ...), then a methodical "sweep" with nuclear explosions of the entire city. This cannot be done with one, or even 10, nuclear bombs. And even pretty bad radar systems can tell the difference between one and tens/hundreds of rockets. So whilst this is a concern, it can and is eliminated with proper infrastructure and planning. There will not be information asymmetry once a nuclear attack actually starts happening.

us-throw1 8y ago

Are you really sure that the US is undisputed in those 4 categories? A list of obvious weaknesses: * The US economy and industrial power is dependent on IT and brittle supply chains. Nobody knows how much the cyber infrastructure holding this up is already compromised. * Russian S-400s can already deny air superiority to Israeli planes, which are not far behind US planes. * How does the US have space superiority when there is no ASAT defense besides MAD? * The US has not been able to suppress a rebellion in Afghanistan with trillions of dollars and 17 years. Maybe in an actual war their hands would be untied, so this isn't the best point. * The US Navy loses war-games to swarm attacks and is just now a decade later deploying solutions to this. When was the last time US ships actually had to fight? Vietnam? * The US has increasing ethnic and social conflicts, not to mention the potential fifth column of residents with ties to enemy powers. * Barely half of US fighter planes are combat ready at any given moment. The trillion dollar F-35 had to be flown with VFR the first time it crossed the IDL. Who knows what else is lurking in that software?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
AcerbicZero 8y ago
I can happily go point by point here, but my original comment wasn't intended to suggest I agreed with the current state of world military balance and shouldn't be taken as implicit support of US policy. That said - * The S-400 is an impressive system. The Russians have so built ~300 of them, and like any system, the soft factors are more important than the paper facts suggest. Training, deployment, doctrine, and strategic/tactical goals would greatly affect the viability of it on any modern battlefield. * Space Superiority is more than just ASAT capabilities, but its an area that few other countries have ever even attempted, and with the US's dominance in rocket technology (arguably anyway) and high altitude laser platforms, I'm fairly confident it would be a stalemate at best, with even the closest competitor. I would agree its an area of US defense that will need special attention over the next ~10 years. * Insurgency =/= Great War. * OIF was heavily supported by carrier based aircraft, and there are exactly zero countries that posses a modern enough navel force to threaten US control of the actual blue water areas. US Submarine technology is decades ahead of everyone else at this point. There are concern developments in this area, but again, we're talking "Great War" * True point. Wars tend to get people pointed in the same direction though. Especially "Great Wars" * US pilots put in more seat time than every other country combined. This is a factor that cannot be overstated. Putting 10x the number of the worlds best plane in the air means nothing if the actual operator cannot leverage those tools effectively. In the end, these are all great points as to why the US has room to improve its lead, but none of them really address the core point which is that the US is currently the undisputed leader in almost every military category, and any "Great War" involving the US would be a very lopsided affair. You're more than welcome to pick your challenger and we can see how long it takes me to make a list twice as long with their problems, although I can't guarantee I'll actually spend the time doing that today :)

hrktb 8y ago

Another great war could mean at least one country preparing for it and building weapons in advance. As of now the US have the greatest army, but if let’s say China were to prepare for it for enough time in a somewhat stealthy way, couldn’t it bring the USA into a long and dirty foght ?

cthalupa 8y ago
>As of now the US have the greatest army, but if let’s say China were to prepare for it for enough time in a somewhat stealthy way, couldn’t it bring the USA into a long and dirty foght ? Well, this is one of the reasons a Great War is unlikely - how are you going to do this? Even if you build things up slowly, you still have to store them somewhere. You have to train people. There is no way to create a military force capable of fighting a Great War in today's age without it being obvious. Which isn't to say that build up can't happen - it's just not going to be a surprise to anyone.
- goatlover 8y ago
  And it's not going to get very far before the nuclear option gets trotted out. What good is an invasion force if the other side feels threatened enough to start nuclear retaliation?
  - stevenwoo 8y ago
    I can remember folks in the Reagan adminstration regularly touted the possibility of winning a nuclear war and used that sort of rhetoric in elections. The other part of that is the fundamentalist Christians in the USA who believe in the literal interpretation of Revelations so for them there is greater glory in armageddon that begins with a conflict in Israel. And in power now, John Bolton is one of those guys who thinks we can win a nuclear war and need simply need to outbuild the other guys.
    - amanaplanacanal 8y ago
      I will say it is weird when it seems to make sense to be more scared of the people on your own side than the people on the enemy's side. Perhaps they have folks just as scary, though.

Yetanfou 8y ago

The US carrier force could be blown out of the water by modern electric submarines [1]. The chance of Sweden starting a war against the US is not all that great - this mouse does not roar - but the same or similar technology (Stirling engines, fuel cells, a boatload of 18650 cells running a sub, etc) are available to parties which might stand to gain more from such a conflict. Replacing a carrier takes years, blowing one up takes a few minutes. Were I in command of the US carrier fleet I would be very mindful of this threat and make sure I always have the fleet dispersed with at least one battle group somewhere behind 'safe' lines. [1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/swedens-super-stealth-submarines-are-so-lethal-they-sank-us-18383 https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/swedens-super-ste... (and many other similar articles elsewhere)

abandonliberty 8y ago
Modern torpedoes are quite impressive, do damage via cavitation. Not sure how detectable they are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_48_torpedo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV8MF-440xg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV8MF-440xg