3 ms·

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

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 :)

AlanSE 8y ago
Due to morbid curiosity or whatever, I can't get enough of these arguments. Yes, the initial superiority of one military is greater by a large margin and will remain that way for some time to come. But I think it's misleading wording to say it "has room to improve its lead", simply due to the fact that emerging powers are improving a greater rate, and it's economically unreasonable to believe otherwise. Plus, no individual actor made the decision to plunge their mighty military power into the conflagration that became WWI. I keep reading articles on the argument that carriers CAN be sunk. One article argued that only a nuclear attack could do it, but its argument was unsubstantiated. Swarm tactics and drone warfare are emerging game-changers in conventional warfare. More than anything, initial phases of WWIII would be missile warfare. Carrier groups can defend against hypersonic, but cannot do so reliably. Combine this with a risky false impression - that war could be contained regionally. Would the symbolism of sinking a carrier be enough to have the U.S. back out of the contested East Asian theaters? I can't answer that question, and it worries me that I can't. If the answer was certain either way, war would be less likely. As it stands, I could see certain gambles being both plausible, and terrifyingly dangerous.
- goatsi 8y ago
  Carriers are not invincible, submarines have gotten clear views of them before in military exercises, let alone missile swarms. The strongest defense a US carrier group has is the fact that there are 10 other carrier groups distributed around the world. I think anyone who thinks that inflicting a sharp defeat on the US in the pacific would crush public morale and push it into a negotiated peace would have to be a very poor student of history.
  - fit2rule 8y ago
    It takes a single Sunburn [0] to take out a carrier. There is no defence - yet. Of course, when the railgun and lasers are deployed, this all changes again, but in the meantime the US' carrier fleet is principally a policing tool, and would be dead in the water during an all-out war - assuming the US chooses to go against an enemy that has the Sunburn in its arsenal. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22
    - abcd_f 8y ago
      Looks like these missiles are at least 20 year old. How come there's no defence against them yet?
      - fit2rule 8y ago
        They're simply too fast and too agile, employing evasion techniques. The only defence is lasers and railguns - thus, we're getting lasers and railguns Real Soon Now™.
      - AcerbicZero 8y ago
        There are several already deployed defenses against these, and weapon systems similar to these. The basic chaff deployment systems, CIWS systems for close in defense, and several anit-missile missile systems can all be leveraged to provide defense against an incoming attack. Additionally, the strongest carrier defense against weapons such as this is the size of the ocean, and their short(ish) range. You can't hit what you can't find, and/or what you can't get close too.
threatofrain 8y ago
A lot of your analysis hinges on these "soft" factors, but I fear that in a technology-led world of drones, direct human combat expertise will be outmoded, or just about any kind of military invention that closely depends on a human's ability to react and process information on time.
tomatotomato37 8y ago
One interesting factor I don't see a lot of in these discussions is that the US also has a nasty habit of leaving its military assets out of range of the land they ultimately defend. A hyper-advanced carrier group out in the Arabian sea won't be a lot of help if Mexico suddenly becomes hyper-nationalistic and decides to press their claims on the US southwest
- Fjolsvith 8y ago
  Just consider every airbase in the US to act as a carrier in support of a US-Mexico altercation.

AlanSE 8y ago

Due to morbid curiosity or whatever, I can't get enough of these arguments. Yes, the initial superiority of one military is greater by a large margin and will remain that way for some time to come. But I think it's misleading wording to say it "has room to improve its lead", simply due to the fact that emerging powers are improving a greater rate, and it's economically unreasonable to believe otherwise. Plus, no individual actor made the decision to plunge their mighty military power into the conflagration that became WWI. I keep reading articles on the argument that carriers CAN be sunk. One article argued that only a nuclear attack could do it, but its argument was unsubstantiated. Swarm tactics and drone warfare are emerging game-changers in conventional warfare. More than anything, initial phases of WWIII would be missile warfare. Carrier groups can defend against hypersonic, but cannot do so reliably. Combine this with a risky false impression - that war could be contained regionally. Would the symbolism of sinking a carrier be enough to have the U.S. back out of the contested East Asian theaters? I can't answer that question, and it worries me that I can't. If the answer was certain either way, war would be less likely. As it stands, I could see certain gambles being both plausible, and terrifyingly dangerous.

goatsi 8y ago
Carriers are not invincible, submarines have gotten clear views of them before in military exercises, let alone missile swarms. The strongest defense a US carrier group has is the fact that there are 10 other carrier groups distributed around the world. I think anyone who thinks that inflicting a sharp defeat on the US in the pacific would crush public morale and push it into a negotiated peace would have to be a very poor student of history.
- fit2rule 8y ago
  It takes a single Sunburn [0] to take out a carrier. There is no defence - yet. Of course, when the railgun and lasers are deployed, this all changes again, but in the meantime the US' carrier fleet is principally a policing tool, and would be dead in the water during an all-out war - assuming the US chooses to go against an enemy that has the Sunburn in its arsenal. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS-N-22
  - abcd_f 8y ago
    Looks like these missiles are at least 20 year old. How come there's no defence against them yet?
    - fit2rule 8y ago
      They're simply too fast and too agile, employing evasion techniques. The only defence is lasers and railguns - thus, we're getting lasers and railguns Real Soon Now™.
    - AcerbicZero 8y ago
      There are several already deployed defenses against these, and weapon systems similar to these. The basic chaff deployment systems, CIWS systems for close in defense, and several anit-missile missile systems can all be leveraged to provide defense against an incoming attack. Additionally, the strongest carrier defense against weapons such as this is the size of the ocean, and their short(ish) range. You can't hit what you can't find, and/or what you can't get close too.

threatofrain 8y ago

A lot of your analysis hinges on these "soft" factors, but I fear that in a technology-led world of drones, direct human combat expertise will be outmoded, or just about any kind of military invention that closely depends on a human's ability to react and process information on time.

tomatotomato37 8y ago

One interesting factor I don't see a lot of in these discussions is that the US also has a nasty habit of leaving its military assets out of range of the land they ultimately defend. A hyper-advanced carrier group out in the Arabian sea won't be a lot of help if Mexico suddenly becomes hyper-nationalistic and decides to press their claims on the US southwest

Fjolsvith 8y ago
Just consider every airbase in the US to act as a carrier in support of a US-Mexico altercation.