5 ms·

US must be ready for simultaneous wars with China, Russia, report says

20 points by zolbrek 3y ago

ReptileMan 3y ago
Unless Russia has armies, weapons and smart generals kept in secret you can write them off. If you can't deal with the likes of Ukraine, you can't wage real wars against capable adversaries. And China hasn't gone to war since the Korean. So there will be at least couple of years of painful learning period for them for the difference between theory and practice.
- pptr 3y ago
  We can barely produce enough weapons and ammunition for Ukraine. I don't think the west's production capacity is ready for a multi front war.
  - jjk166 3y ago
    The weapons sent to Ukraine are generally out of date surplus, and the ammunition for those weapons are generally either out of production or nearly so. The west is no where near going into a wartime economy maximizing production of its latest military equipment, and that is by design. The west has been balancing support for Ukraine against not escalating tension with Russia, who regardless of their conventional military's capability are nevertheless sitting on the world's largest nuclear stockpile. This is a limited proxy conflict, and the west is behaving as such.
  - fred_is_fred 3y ago
    A functional peacetime economy generally doesn't have weapons manufacturing capacity to fight a two front world-war.
  - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
    > We can barely produce enough weapons and ammunition for Ukraine Ukraine is fighting a completely different war, with a completely different military doctrine, which requires different type of weapons and ammo. We're rarely sending what we are actually using. The US is not depleting its own ammo warchest to supply Ukraine. For example, the US is not big on artillery shells in general. We prefer rockets. If the US moves to a wartime economy, I bet it will have a production capacity never before seen in history.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      I'm not so sure about that. Manufacturing has been leaving the US for decades and the kind of capacity that was there at the end of WWII and the peak of the cold war was likely much higher compared to where things are today.
- cafard 3y ago
  No, actually, China did a limited incursion into Vietnam a couple of years after the US left. It didn't work out well for the Chinese.
throwaway4good 3y ago
And in the Middle East … and on terror … and on drugs …
toenail 3y ago
Military industrial complex says US must be ready for wars, shocker.
- bentt 3y ago
  This is the whole thing
remarkEon 3y ago
The linked report[1] is 160ish pages long, and "Ctrl + F" for "draft" or "conscription" yields nothing. Posturing about fighting a two front war - in Europe and in Asia, again - is not serious unless we are talking about conscription. There is an on-going recruiting crisis across all service branches, and the AVF will not be able to support a single front war, let alone two. This is perhaps a neat laundry list of interesting technology, from people who I'm sure are very smart, but, again, unless the first paragraph of the first chapter starts out by talking about how you put bodies in uniforms to use that technology it doesn't matter. [1] https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/A/Am/Americas%20Strategic%20Posture/Strategic-Posture-Commission-Report.pdf https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/A/Am/Americ...
- nradov 3y ago
  Does the military even want conscripts? If those great power conflicts do happen then they will largely be fought using complex stand-off weapons. Low skilled, unmotivated conscripts are likely to be more of a hindrance than a help. If we can procure another cruise missile instead of training and supplying a few more riflemen, which will make the greater contribution?
  - maximinus_thrax 3y ago
    > Low skilled, unmotivated conscripts ... are ok in the rear echelon. You don't have to have much motivation to load up crates of ammo, drive trucks, deal with the food supply, etc. The US military doctrine (unlike the Russian doctrine which is on the frontpage right now) does not rely on cannon fodder, barrier troops and stuff like that, so it's not like we need to send more bodies into a war of attrition unless of course, we're literally invaded by land sea and air.
- drodgers 3y ago
  My understanding is that unwilling conscripts are widely regarded as less than worthless in a modern military. It’s a little different for Ukraine since their conscripts are so highly motivated by defending their home, but even they were turning away recruits for a while. I’m sure the same kind of motivated conscripts could be found if the US mainland were threatened but that’s not what’s being contemplated here.
WentFullRetard 3y ago
[dead]

20 points by zolbrek 3y ago

Unless Russia has armies, weapons and smart generals kept in secret you can write them off. If you can't deal with the likes of Ukraine, you can't wage real wars against capable adversaries. And China hasn't gone to war since the Korean. So there will be at least couple of years of painful learning period for them for the difference between theory and practice.

pptr 3y ago
We can barely produce enough weapons and ammunition for Ukraine. I don't think the west's production capacity is ready for a multi front war.
- jjk166 3y ago
  The weapons sent to Ukraine are generally out of date surplus, and the ammunition for those weapons are generally either out of production or nearly so. The west is no where near going into a wartime economy maximizing production of its latest military equipment, and that is by design. The west has been balancing support for Ukraine against not escalating tension with Russia, who regardless of their conventional military's capability are nevertheless sitting on the world's largest nuclear stockpile. This is a limited proxy conflict, and the west is behaving as such.
- fred_is_fred 3y ago
  A functional peacetime economy generally doesn't have weapons manufacturing capacity to fight a two front world-war.
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  > We can barely produce enough weapons and ammunition for Ukraine Ukraine is fighting a completely different war, with a completely different military doctrine, which requires different type of weapons and ammo. We're rarely sending what we are actually using. The US is not depleting its own ammo warchest to supply Ukraine. For example, the US is not big on artillery shells in general. We prefer rockets. If the US moves to a wartime economy, I bet it will have a production capacity never before seen in history.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    I'm not so sure about that. Manufacturing has been leaving the US for decades and the kind of capacity that was there at the end of WWII and the peak of the cold war was likely much higher compared to where things are today.
cafard 3y ago
No, actually, China did a limited incursion into Vietnam a couple of years after the US left. It didn't work out well for the Chinese.

throwaway4good 3y ago

And in the Middle East … and on terror … and on drugs …

toenail 3y ago

Military industrial complex says US must be ready for wars, shocker.

bentt 3y ago
This is the whole thing

remarkEon 3y ago

The linked report[1] is 160ish pages long, and "Ctrl + F" for "draft" or "conscription" yields nothing. Posturing about fighting a two front war - in Europe and in Asia, again - is not serious unless we are talking about conscription. There is an on-going recruiting crisis across all service branches, and the AVF will not be able to support a single front war, let alone two. This is perhaps a neat laundry list of interesting technology, from people who I'm sure are very smart, but, again, unless the first paragraph of the first chapter starts out by talking about how you put bodies in uniforms to use that technology it doesn't matter. [1] https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/A/Am/Americas%20Strategic%20Posture/Strategic-Posture-Commission-Report.pdf https://www.ida.org/-/media/feature/publications/A/Am/Americ...

nradov 3y ago
Does the military even want conscripts? If those great power conflicts do happen then they will largely be fought using complex stand-off weapons. Low skilled, unmotivated conscripts are likely to be more of a hindrance than a help. If we can procure another cruise missile instead of training and supplying a few more riflemen, which will make the greater contribution?
- maximinus_thrax 3y ago
  > Low skilled, unmotivated conscripts ... are ok in the rear echelon. You don't have to have much motivation to load up crates of ammo, drive trucks, deal with the food supply, etc. The US military doctrine (unlike the Russian doctrine which is on the frontpage right now) does not rely on cannon fodder, barrier troops and stuff like that, so it's not like we need to send more bodies into a war of attrition unless of course, we're literally invaded by land sea and air.
drodgers 3y ago
My understanding is that unwilling conscripts are widely regarded as less than worthless in a modern military. It’s a little different for Ukraine since their conscripts are so highly motivated by defending their home, but even they were turning away recruits for a while. I’m sure the same kind of motivated conscripts could be found if the US mainland were threatened but that’s not what’s being contemplated here.

WentFullRetard 3y ago

[dead]