5 ms·

Good points, especially about the extremely hypothetical nature of these issues, though I'm not suggesting better technology to the exclusion of logistics. As

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.
  - warner25 3y ago
    > ...talk about it like a sporting event ('win' and 'lose' (my bad) should be banned from the discussion of warfare)... To be fair, the Army's own foundational doctrinal publication - ADP 1 - uses the word "win" very prominently. The second-to-last line of the Foreword by Chief of Staff says, "The fundamental role of the American Soldier today is the same as it was over 244 years ago—to win." It goes on from there. So don't feel bad. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN18008_ADP-1%20FINAL%20WEB.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN1800... As someone who deployed to combat myself, and who has known many who died there and since that time from suicide, my biggest complaint is that it didn't feel like we (as a nation) were really trying to "win." We were just going back again and again to "do our time," which made dying there seem especially pointless. I agree with everything else said.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      I noticed that the US military picked up the hot cultural and management-speak of 'winners' and 'winning' etc., whatever that means - business is usually optimizing a both-sides-benefit scenario; when I sell my client some IT thing, I hope that I, the client, my subcontractor, the manufacturer, etc. all do well from it. You can see its absurdity in sports, where 'winning' even makes some sense, when I see them talk about a prospect, 'first, they're a winner' - you mean they played for the school that's won 5 national titles in 10 years, with or without them? Is there a better player at a bad school that you're purposely overlooking for this ambiguous BS? But I was a bit disturbed to see ads for the US Marine Corps over the last few years. The Marines used to talk about, "First to fight for right and freedom / And to keep our honor clean". The ad taglines had been 'for honor, for country, etc.' - something bigger than the individual, a higher cause. Then the taglines became 'Marines fight to win'. Win what? It's almost aggressive amorality (which I think is the message of the management-speak, 'that's all we care about'). Perhaps appropriately, given your and many other experiences, nobody is thinking that far. Also, it seems much less motivating than fighting for freedom, etc., as you say.
      - warner25 3y ago
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

> 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.
- warner25 3y ago
  > ...talk about it like a sporting event ('win' and 'lose' (my bad) should be banned from the discussion of warfare)... To be fair, the Army's own foundational doctrinal publication - ADP 1 - uses the word "win" very prominently. The second-to-last line of the Foreword by Chief of Staff says, "The fundamental role of the American Soldier today is the same as it was over 244 years ago—to win." It goes on from there. So don't feel bad. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN18008_ADP-1%20FINAL%20WEB.pdf https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN1800... As someone who deployed to combat myself, and who has known many who died there and since that time from suicide, my biggest complaint is that it didn't feel like we (as a nation) were really trying to "win." We were just going back again and again to "do our time," which made dying there seem especially pointless. I agree with everything else said.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    I noticed that the US military picked up the hot cultural and management-speak of 'winners' and 'winning' etc., whatever that means - business is usually optimizing a both-sides-benefit scenario; when I sell my client some IT thing, I hope that I, the client, my subcontractor, the manufacturer, etc. all do well from it. You can see its absurdity in sports, where 'winning' even makes some sense, when I see them talk about a prospect, 'first, they're a winner' - you mean they played for the school that's won 5 national titles in 10 years, with or without them? Is there a better player at a bad school that you're purposely overlooking for this ambiguous BS? But I was a bit disturbed to see ads for the US Marine Corps over the last few years. The Marines used to talk about, "First to fight for right and freedom / And to keep our honor clean". The ad taglines had been 'for honor, for country, etc.' - something bigger than the individual, a higher cause. Then the taglines became 'Marines fight to win'. Win what? It's almost aggressive amorality (which I think is the message of the management-speak, 'that's all we care about'). Perhaps appropriately, given your and many other experiences, nobody is thinking that far. Also, it seems much less motivating than fighting for freedom, etc., as you say.
    - warner25 3y ago

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...