4 ms·

American military doctrine seems to include the assumption that you will always have the manufacturing capacity and the supply lines to get all the materiel you

American military doctrine seems to include the assumption that you will always have the manufacturing capacity and the supply lines to get all the materiel you need to the front, that you'll be bottlenecked by something else like manpower. This works pretty well for fighting limited wars where part of the justification is to develop and maintain military readiness. Would it still be true in a large scale war against China - could you pump out a million drones a day - or would you wish for a doctrine that included reusable drones?

dgoldstein0 1y ago
Good question. I think something to keep in mind, the US hasn't fought a war on the home front since 1865. The Spanish American war, WWI and WWII, Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf war, Afghanistan, Iraq - none of these were fought on American soil, with the exception of Pearl harbor, which was a navy base, not a major manufacturing site. So we haven't really had to reckon with what happens if our homeland is under fire - sure, we drilled for it during WWII, worrying about Nazi bombers and Japanese sabotage but neither actually happened. It doesn't look like our wars are going to get closer anytime soon, but modern planes and rocketry have much greater range than in the 1940s the last time we were at war with countries with significant resources. If we ever come head to head with China, their missile capabilities could be a real concern.
bell-cot 1y ago
> American military doctrine seems to include the assumption that ... Since at least WWI, the US military has been very aware of their dependence on the industrial base: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower_School_for_National_Security_and_Resource_Strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower_School_fo... (That I know of, their awareness of high-capacity supply line issues goes back to at least the Civil War.) Historically, the US military had a considerable industrial base of its own - arsenals, navy yards, etc. - which could manufacture anything from a pistol cartridge up to an aircraft carrier. Unfortunately, Congress shut all of that down in the later 1900's, in favor of defense contractors. Gov't-owned facilities just couldn't compete at greasing Congressional palms.
Thlom 1y ago
The US would loose a war against China simply because China can outproduce the US many times over. I have no idea why the US keeps teasing a war with China, a war they would most certainly loose. What is the point?
- energy123 1y ago
  Can China protect their relevant industrial base from being quickly degraded by intelligence + bombers? In WW2, Japan had no power projection into the US mainland, so the industrial base of US sealed the deal.
  - Thlom 1y ago
    Most likely yes, simply by the scale of their industrial base and military strength. No way the US can significantly degrade Chinese industrial base in a war scenario without using massive amounts of nukes and I don't think even Trump is that insane.
    - energy123 1y ago
      This appears to assume a lack of intelligence such that the entire industrial base needs to be targeted. But only a relatively small subtree of the industrial base is relevant, and you don't necessarily need to degrade the whole subtree, it can be sufficient to degrade key nodes that create supply chain bottlenecks. I'm not saying it can be done, but I am unpersuaded that it can't.
      - Teever 1y ago
        The problem is that the exact same can be said of the American industrial base and the American industrial base is much smaller than the Chinese one so it would be far easier to wipe out.
        energy123 1y ago
        Wiped out with what aircraft carriers and with what air superiority? China has limited to no power projection into US mainland aside from ICBMs which are scarce. US has B2 bombers they can send over China. US has multiple nearby countries they can use as a staging ground for their F-16 and F-35s. They can send sorties over and over into China and drop thousands of JDAMs onto selected targets. China can't do anything like that. China's SRBMs and navy and airforce are a threat to Asian countries but not the US.
maxglute 1y ago
In Pacific war... with standoff distances involved most of determinant fighting all going to be one way trip, i.e. 2000km+ = disposable. I suppose question is how much US can value engineer their stand off missiles, which will inevitably have more requirements than PRC because when US moving shit across salty ocean, each shot is logistically more expensive. PRC can just haul them out of conditioned depots and get firing. And how many US can actually produce, i.e. bluntly, US military has _never_ fought any adversary on the scale of modern PRC. WW2 JP+DE had like <50% of US economic and industrial power, while being ganged up by multiple other allies with reasonably large militaries. Peak cold war USSR also similar scale (1/2 US) and realistically US war plan for NATO invasion was to stall and nuke the Fulda gap. Asymmetrically stomping Iraq still took 5 carriers on high tempo operations (not sustainable for more than 1-2 months), favourable coalition basing, completely compromised IADs... multiple months to dismantle power charitability 1/100th size of modern PRC. Even Korean war vs peasant PRC fought US+UN to stand still. Vs modern PRC with 150% US GDP by PPP and and industrial gap like current shipbuilding #s, in their backyard, I suppose the answer is, get defense spending back to 10%-15% of GDP (at least Korean or Vietnamese wartime economy) and go figure out form there.
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  Another way of putting that is that for all that people love to point to gunship diplomacy, the US is if anything more fond of using diplomats to aid our military than the other way around.

dgoldstein0 1y ago

Good question. I think something to keep in mind, the US hasn't fought a war on the home front since 1865. The Spanish American war, WWI and WWII, Vietnam, Korea, the Gulf war, Afghanistan, Iraq - none of these were fought on American soil, with the exception of Pearl harbor, which was a navy base, not a major manufacturing site. So we haven't really had to reckon with what happens if our homeland is under fire - sure, we drilled for it during WWII, worrying about Nazi bombers and Japanese sabotage but neither actually happened. It doesn't look like our wars are going to get closer anytime soon, but modern planes and rocketry have much greater range than in the 1940s the last time we were at war with countries with significant resources. If we ever come head to head with China, their missile capabilities could be a real concern.

bell-cot 1y ago

> American military doctrine seems to include the assumption that ... Since at least WWI, the US military has been very aware of their dependence on the industrial base: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower_School_for_National_Security_and_Resource_Strategy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower_School_fo... (That I know of, their awareness of high-capacity supply line issues goes back to at least the Civil War.) Historically, the US military had a considerable industrial base of its own - arsenals, navy yards, etc. - which could manufacture anything from a pistol cartridge up to an aircraft carrier. Unfortunately, Congress shut all of that down in the later 1900's, in favor of defense contractors. Gov't-owned facilities just couldn't compete at greasing Congressional palms.

Thlom 1y ago

The US would loose a war against China simply because China can outproduce the US many times over. I have no idea why the US keeps teasing a war with China, a war they would most certainly loose. What is the point?

energy123 1y ago
Can China protect their relevant industrial base from being quickly degraded by intelligence + bombers? In WW2, Japan had no power projection into the US mainland, so the industrial base of US sealed the deal.
- Thlom 1y ago
  Most likely yes, simply by the scale of their industrial base and military strength. No way the US can significantly degrade Chinese industrial base in a war scenario without using massive amounts of nukes and I don't think even Trump is that insane.
  - energy123 1y ago
    This appears to assume a lack of intelligence such that the entire industrial base needs to be targeted. But only a relatively small subtree of the industrial base is relevant, and you don't necessarily need to degrade the whole subtree, it can be sufficient to degrade key nodes that create supply chain bottlenecks. I'm not saying it can be done, but I am unpersuaded that it can't.
    - Teever 1y ago
      The problem is that the exact same can be said of the American industrial base and the American industrial base is much smaller than the Chinese one so it would be far easier to wipe out.
      - energy123 1y ago
        Wiped out with what aircraft carriers and with what air superiority? China has limited to no power projection into US mainland aside from ICBMs which are scarce. US has B2 bombers they can send over China. US has multiple nearby countries they can use as a staging ground for their F-16 and F-35s. They can send sorties over and over into China and drop thousands of JDAMs onto selected targets. China can't do anything like that. China's SRBMs and navy and airforce are a threat to Asian countries but not the US.

maxglute 1y ago

In Pacific war... with standoff distances involved most of determinant fighting all going to be one way trip, i.e. 2000km+ = disposable. I suppose question is how much US can value engineer their stand off missiles, which will inevitably have more requirements than PRC because when US moving shit across salty ocean, each shot is logistically more expensive. PRC can just haul them out of conditioned depots and get firing. And how many US can actually produce, i.e. bluntly, US military has _never_ fought any adversary on the scale of modern PRC. WW2 JP+DE had like <50% of US economic and industrial power, while being ganged up by multiple other allies with reasonably large militaries. Peak cold war USSR also similar scale (1/2 US) and realistically US war plan for NATO invasion was to stall and nuke the Fulda gap. Asymmetrically stomping Iraq still took 5 carriers on high tempo operations (not sustainable for more than 1-2 months), favourable coalition basing, completely compromised IADs... multiple months to dismantle power charitability 1/100th size of modern PRC. Even Korean war vs peasant PRC fought US+UN to stand still. Vs modern PRC with 150% US GDP by PPP and and industrial gap like current shipbuilding #s, in their backyard, I suppose the answer is, get defense spending back to 10%-15% of GDP (at least Korean or Vietnamese wartime economy) and go figure out form there.

BobaFloutist 1y ago
Another way of putting that is that for all that people love to point to gunship diplomacy, the US is if anything more fond of using diplomats to aid our military than the other way around.