3 ms·

With the obvious caveat that if there ever actually is a shooting war with China on one side and the US on the other then the whole world is in serious trouble

With the obvious caveat that if there ever actually is a shooting war with China on one side and the US on the other then the whole world is in serious trouble and there are no good options: I am not sure that having superior technology is critical to winning wars against "peer" competitors. The last time there was a full out peer-competitor bleeding edge war between major powers (World War Two) the side that invested in a few wonderwaffen that were supposed to eviscerate their larger number of enemies lost, and the side that invested in a lot of pretty good weapons and most importantly, the logistics and reliability to have these pretty good weapons actually show up at the battlefront won the war. It's hard to directly translate this into modern terms, but I would say that a few pieces of "exceptional, ground-breaking technology" wasn't what decided World War Two, so why do you think it would decide this hypothetical war?

wolverine876 3y ago
Good points, especially about the extremely hypothetical nature of these issues, though I'm not suggesting better technology to the exclusion of logistics. As a counterpoint, NATOs strategy in the Cold War was to 'offset' superior Soviet numbers by having better technology - first by having more nuclear weapons, then by using the superior technology of precision munitions and the associated global navigation and sensor network (so the munitions can track their own position and locate their targets) as demonstrated in the Gulf War. But by far the most important point: > With the obvious caveat that if there ever actually is a shooting war with China on one side and the US on the other then the whole world is in serious trouble and there are no good options: I think about that, and I never heard it said (so thanks): At the end of WWII, the leaders of the combatants thought that future large-scale war must be prevented because the improving technology would wipe out civilization, thus they created the UN, (proto-)EU, etc. That was 80 years ago. A war with China may very well include, for example, missiles hitting San Francisco, LA, SD, Seattle. Even if the US won, it would lose badly.
- SEJeff 3y ago
  > A war with China may very well include, for example, missiles hitting San Francisco, LA, SD, Seattle. Even if the US won, it would lose badly. This is how ALL wars are, and I can say this confidently as a combat veteran from Operation Iraqi Freedom II. When you fight in a war, you always lose a small bit of yourself. There is no turning back. When someone in either side is injured or especially dies, both sides permanently lose. The thing about war many civilians never seem to understand is that one side loses less, but both sides still lose. If this was untrue, we would not have such a high number of homeless veterans or veterans who commit suicide. Personally, I know of six soldiers I deployed to Iraq with who have committed suicide over the past 20 years (OIF II was ~2003-2004). No one ever wants to talk about these things in polite company, but you can never take these things back. War is hell.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Hey - you are right and I should have included that essential point. I was focused on other issues, but the whole thing makes me angry. The all-volunteer, professional US military, for all its advantages, loses civilian familiarity with the realities of the military and warfare - people seem to know Call of Duty, where killing is like shooting baskets. When I see people glorify the military, soldiers and warfare, or talk about it like a sporting event ('win' and 'lose' (my bad) should be banned from the discussion of warfare) I feel very uneasy: First, people have those extreme, romantic conceptions of things they don't understand; when there was universal conscription, the military was a stand-in for bureaucratic absurdity (e.g., Gomer Pyle, MASH, expressions like FUBAR and SNAFU), not glorification; war veterans generally (IME) are not war mongers. Also, I feel a little queasy; I think, 'it creates (intentionally, in the hands of some public figures) the public mindset that makes it easier'. And finally - again, maybe intentionally for some, maybe subconsciously for many - it shuts down the actual experiences of veterans; it makes clear that there is only space for the 'glorious' version of warfare and anything else is almost antisocial. Finally, it all lets people put warfare on the back burner, which IMHO is how Afghanistan and Iraq lasted so long. My (very amateur) policy idea is that the US should bring back universal conscription but only for the reserves (and no exceptions, as a hard and fast rule). Sure, it's not as optimal as volunteers, former active duty, etc. But then there would be real skin in the game for everyone, and everyone's families and friends. They'd understand the military, and what warfare was about. I hope no more hyping war with China (or Iran!). I'm very sorry about your friends and for what you lost. We need to do far better with how seriously we take warfare and how we treat soldiers when they come home. It's really absurd. Thanks for sharing your experience.
- mandevil 3y ago
  North Korea test flew the Hwangson-15 ICBM for the first time in January 2017, which has demonstrated the capability to put a few hundred kilograms essentially anywhere in the lower 48 United States. So the only possible question about North Korea's ability to hit any point in the lower 48 with a nuke is whether their devices are that small. And the main point of the famed "Disco Ball of Death" picture [1] is that North Korea almost certainly has nuclear weapons that can fit into that size range. So, North Korea, everyone loves to laugh at how backwards they are, but they almost certainly have the ability to put nuclear weapons anywhere into the continental United States- New York, Miami, everywhere. (Also France, the UK, and basically everywhere but parts of South America and the Caribbean.) Because of their conventional inferiority, North Korea has talked openly about how their doctrine is to preempt US and ROK attacks by launching their missiles first- they do not appear to believe that they have a guaranteed second strike between their small size and conventional military problems. The result is that the North Koreans seem to have a number of nuclear weapons and are convinced that their missiles have a large use-it-or-lose-it vulnerability, which is a very unstable situation. (2) China, which has decades more experience with nuclear weapons, missiles, and a much larger and more vibrant economy, is talking about fancy things like FOBS and atmospheric maneuvering reentry vehicles (to guarantee defeat of the US ABM system in Alaska) while at the same time seem to be increasing their missile deployments(3). They don't seem to have a doctrine of 'go nuclear at the first opportunity' like the North Koreans do, and do seem to believe that they can have a guaranteed second strike, which at least brings us back to conventional MAD territory. But that's still pretty scary, we're back to 1964 again. War involving the US with either country would be a very unpleasant day indeed for all of humanity. 1: https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/03/21/470976577/why-analysts-arent-laughing-at-these-silly-north-korean-photos https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/03/21/470976577/... 2: As Jeffery Lewis, Arms Control Wonk, likes to point out, South Korea's doctrine also appears to be a preemptive first strike, because the only way they can foresee protecting Seoul- in artillery range of the DMZ- is to wipe out North Korea's command authority first. So North and South Korea are both committed to a doctrine of striking the other first. They can't both be right about that. 3: https://fas.org/publication/china-is-building-a-second-nuclear-missile-silo-field/ https://fas.org/publication/china-is-building-a-second-nucle...
SEJeff 3y ago
I don't want to get into a measuring competition, but is there a military that does logistics better than the US? I mean this very seriously and not at all in a jingoist way. Look at how fast the US went from Kuwait to taking Baghdad international airport in the beginning of OIF. I recall that the entire world was like HOLY CRAP and had no idea how good the US was at logistics up until that part. “Infantry wins battles, logistics wins wars.” US Army General John J. Pershing, on battle in WWI
- wolverine876 3y ago
  There is no question you're right, as far as anything I've read, but is that a matter resources - of budget (the US having an extremely large one) and of long-term investment (systems, transport, bases world-wide, training, etc.) - or is it a matter of the US being somehow particularly talented in that field? At the same time, a war with China would likely be focused, at least, in the western Pacific. China's supply lines would be so much shorter - much of it would be in Chinese waters, the US would have to cross the Pacific ocean - than it's hard to believe the US would have a logistics advantage. The US is working hard to preposition bases, supplies, forces, alliances, etc. But the entirety of China, for millennia, has been effectively prepositioned. Again, the war would be disaster for all, regardless.
  - nradov 3y ago
    For a national military to have solid logistics requires the country's culture to have a decent educational system, a strong work ethic, and a reasonably low corruption level. China has the first two and they're working on the third. In the past much of the stuff they would need to fight a real war has been straight up stolen by military officers and Party cadres. (I am aware that there is corruption and waste in US military logistics but it has been relatively lower than their adversaries.)
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > For a national military to have solid logistics requires the country's culture to have a decent educational system, a strong work ethic, and a reasonably low corruption level. Interesting. I can see how those factors would help, at least. Is that a well-accepted theory? Whose is it? > China has the first two and they're working on the third. Corruption is a disease of dictatorships. Without a free press, opposition parties, separation of powers, and the public able to vote out the government, nothing really stops it. Imagine how corrupt a US president's administration would become with none of those things to stop it, after about 10-20 years. It's also the purpose of authoritarians, in a sense: You can see it in the unprecedented, brazen corruption of neo-authoritarians and their supporters in Western countries. They want power for the fruits of corruption (perhaps among other things). IIRC Chinese history, it's long been taught that history goes a cycle of three phases (my memory of the details will be off here, but this is the idea): Chaos, when there is no stable government. Ascent, where a new dynasty seizes power, and the country grows and flourishes. Decent, where the dynasty loses momentum, corruption grows, and instability grows. Then a return to Chaos. I'm sure the Communists, who are not unlike a dynasty in many ways, are very aware of that model of history.

wolverine876 3y ago

Good points, especially about the extremely hypothetical nature of these issues, though I'm not suggesting better technology to the exclusion of logistics. As a counterpoint, NATOs strategy in the Cold War was to 'offset' superior Soviet numbers by having better technology - first by having more nuclear weapons, then by using the superior technology of precision munitions and the associated global navigation and sensor network (so the munitions can track their own position and locate their targets) as demonstrated in the Gulf War. But by far the most important point: > With the obvious caveat that if there ever actually is a shooting war with China on one side and the US on the other then the whole world is in serious trouble and there are no good options: I think about that, and I never heard it said (so thanks): At the end of WWII, the leaders of the combatants thought that future large-scale war must be prevented because the improving technology would wipe out civilization, thus they created the UN, (proto-)EU, etc. That was 80 years ago. A war with China may very well include, for example, missiles hitting San Francisco, LA, SD, Seattle. Even if the US won, it would lose badly.

SEJeff 3y ago
> A war with China may very well include, for example, missiles hitting San Francisco, LA, SD, Seattle. Even if the US won, it would lose badly. This is how ALL wars are, and I can say this confidently as a combat veteran from Operation Iraqi Freedom II. When you fight in a war, you always lose a small bit of yourself. There is no turning back. When someone in either side is injured or especially dies, both sides permanently lose. The thing about war many civilians never seem to understand is that one side loses less, but both sides still lose. If this was untrue, we would not have such a high number of homeless veterans or veterans who commit suicide. Personally, I know of six soldiers I deployed to Iraq with who have committed suicide over the past 20 years (OIF II was ~2003-2004). No one ever wants to talk about these things in polite company, but you can never take these things back. War is hell.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Hey - you are right and I should have included that essential point. I was focused on other issues, but the whole thing makes me angry. The all-volunteer, professional US military, for all its advantages, loses civilian familiarity with the realities of the military and warfare - people seem to know Call of Duty, where killing is like shooting baskets. When I see people glorify the military, soldiers and warfare, or talk about it like a sporting event ('win' and 'lose' (my bad) should be banned from the discussion of warfare) I feel very uneasy: First, people have those extreme, romantic conceptions of things they don't understand; when there was universal conscription, the military was a stand-in for bureaucratic absurdity (e.g., Gomer Pyle, MASH, expressions like FUBAR and SNAFU), not glorification; war veterans generally (IME) are not war mongers. Also, I feel a little queasy; I think, 'it creates (intentionally, in the hands of some public figures) the public mindset that makes it easier'. And finally - again, maybe intentionally for some, maybe subconsciously for many - it shuts down the actual experiences of veterans; it makes clear that there is only space for the 'glorious' version of warfare and anything else is almost antisocial. Finally, it all lets people put warfare on the back burner, which IMHO is how Afghanistan and Iraq lasted so long. My (very amateur) policy idea is that the US should bring back universal conscription but only for the reserves (and no exceptions, as a hard and fast rule). Sure, it's not as optimal as volunteers, former active duty, etc. But then there would be real skin in the game for everyone, and everyone's families and friends. They'd understand the military, and what warfare was about. I hope no more hyping war with China (or Iran!). I'm very sorry about your friends and for what you lost. We need to do far better with how seriously we take warfare and how we treat soldiers when they come home. It's really absurd. Thanks for sharing your experience.
mandevil 3y ago
North Korea test flew the Hwangson-15 ICBM for the first time in January 2017, which has demonstrated the capability to put a few hundred kilograms essentially anywhere in the lower 48 United States. So the only possible question about North Korea's ability to hit any point in the lower 48 with a nuke is whether their devices are that small. And the main point of the famed "Disco Ball of Death" picture [1] is that North Korea almost certainly has nuclear weapons that can fit into that size range. So, North Korea, everyone loves to laugh at how backwards they are, but they almost certainly have the ability to put nuclear weapons anywhere into the continental United States- New York, Miami, everywhere. (Also France, the UK, and basically everywhere but parts of South America and the Caribbean.) Because of their conventional inferiority, North Korea has talked openly about how their doctrine is to preempt US and ROK attacks by launching their missiles first- they do not appear to believe that they have a guaranteed second strike between their small size and conventional military problems. The result is that the North Koreans seem to have a number of nuclear weapons and are convinced that their missiles have a large use-it-or-lose-it vulnerability, which is a very unstable situation. (2) China, which has decades more experience with nuclear weapons, missiles, and a much larger and more vibrant economy, is talking about fancy things like FOBS and atmospheric maneuvering reentry vehicles (to guarantee defeat of the US ABM system in Alaska) while at the same time seem to be increasing their missile deployments(3). They don't seem to have a doctrine of 'go nuclear at the first opportunity' like the North Koreans do, and do seem to believe that they can have a guaranteed second strike, which at least brings us back to conventional MAD territory. But that's still pretty scary, we're back to 1964 again. War involving the US with either country would be a very unpleasant day indeed for all of humanity. 1: https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/03/21/470976577/why-analysts-arent-laughing-at-these-silly-north-korean-photos https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/03/21/470976577/... 2: As Jeffery Lewis, Arms Control Wonk, likes to point out, South Korea's doctrine also appears to be a preemptive first strike, because the only way they can foresee protecting Seoul- in artillery range of the DMZ- is to wipe out North Korea's command authority first. So North and South Korea are both committed to a doctrine of striking the other first. They can't both be right about that. 3: https://fas.org/publication/china-is-building-a-second-nuclear-missile-silo-field/ https://fas.org/publication/china-is-building-a-second-nucle...

SEJeff 3y ago

I don't want to get into a measuring competition, but is there a military that does logistics better than the US? I mean this very seriously and not at all in a jingoist way. Look at how fast the US went from Kuwait to taking Baghdad international airport in the beginning of OIF. I recall that the entire world was like HOLY CRAP and had no idea how good the US was at logistics up until that part. “Infantry wins battles, logistics wins wars.” US Army General John J. Pershing, on battle in WWI

wolverine876 3y ago
There is no question you're right, as far as anything I've read, but is that a matter resources - of budget (the US having an extremely large one) and of long-term investment (systems, transport, bases world-wide, training, etc.) - or is it a matter of the US being somehow particularly talented in that field? At the same time, a war with China would likely be focused, at least, in the western Pacific. China's supply lines would be so much shorter - much of it would be in Chinese waters, the US would have to cross the Pacific ocean - than it's hard to believe the US would have a logistics advantage. The US is working hard to preposition bases, supplies, forces, alliances, etc. But the entirety of China, for millennia, has been effectively prepositioned. Again, the war would be disaster for all, regardless.
- nradov 3y ago
  For a national military to have solid logistics requires the country's culture to have a decent educational system, a strong work ethic, and a reasonably low corruption level. China has the first two and they're working on the third. In the past much of the stuff they would need to fight a real war has been straight up stolen by military officers and Party cadres. (I am aware that there is corruption and waste in US military logistics but it has been relatively lower than their adversaries.)
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > For a national military to have solid logistics requires the country's culture to have a decent educational system, a strong work ethic, and a reasonably low corruption level. Interesting. I can see how those factors would help, at least. Is that a well-accepted theory? Whose is it? > China has the first two and they're working on the third. Corruption is a disease of dictatorships. Without a free press, opposition parties, separation of powers, and the public able to vote out the government, nothing really stops it. Imagine how corrupt a US president's administration would become with none of those things to stop it, after about 10-20 years. It's also the purpose of authoritarians, in a sense: You can see it in the unprecedented, brazen corruption of neo-authoritarians and their supporters in Western countries. They want power for the fruits of corruption (perhaps among other things). IIRC Chinese history, it's long been taught that history goes a cycle of three phases (my memory of the details will be off here, but this is the idea): Chaos, when there is no stable government. Ascent, where a new dynasty seizes power, and the country grows and flourishes. Decent, where the dynasty loses momentum, corruption grows, and instability grows. Then a return to Chaos. I'm sure the Communists, who are not unlike a dynasty in many ways, are very aware of that model of history.