4 ms·
The main point of this paper is that rear area bases are too vulnerable now. This paper is from West Point, and is the view from the Army side. It's a big pro
by Animats 3mo ago
The main point of this paper is that rear area bases are too vulnerable now.
This paper is from West Point, and is the view from the Army side.
It's a big problem for air forces, too.
The US has a tradition of large, supposedly secure bases in the rear. The USAF has relied on this since WWII. It's not working any more. Iran has been hitting US air bases. In the last day, they've hit US bases in Qatar, Jordan, Kuwait and Bahrain. That's just this round. There were previous hits a few months back. It's not publicized much, but it's no secret. It's hard to protect an air base against drones. Air bases are big, everyone knows where they are, airplanes are hard to hide from drones, and are vulnerable to small explosive charges. As Russia keeps finding out as Ukraine hits their air bases. There have been hits well inside Russia. Blast-resistant hangars in Crimea have been attacked. Don't leave a door open.
China is going in for airbase hardening in a big way.[1] This is sometimes called a "concrete sky" program. The USAF is way behind in the Pacific. Too many planes parked out in the open, or in weak hangars.
Active defenses against drones and missiles do work, but they just thin them out. Some get through.
If the attacker has enough manufacturing capacity, the defenses can be overwhelmed. Ukraine is currently building about 7 million drones a year.
[1] https://www.hudson.org/arms-control-nonproliferation/concrete-sky-air-base-hardening-western-pacific-timothy-walton-thomas-shugart https://www.hudson.org/arms-control-nonproliferation/concret...
- shimman 3mo agoMaybe the US should focus more on diplomacy and open collaboration rather than letting a few dozen psychopaths convince the country we need to support a war machine that has benefited no one outside of the defense industry.
- Noumenon72 3mo agoIf the problem was as simple as a few individuals and had no benefits it would not persist -- this is a Hollywood view of the world that won't help you understand your opposition.
- shimman 3mo agoNo, it's quite simple. US imperialism only benefits the select elites of the country at the expense of the poor. Why are you denying the absolutely destructive power of the US military and it's abject failure in not only making the world safer for Americans but explicitly more dangerous? Are you personally benefiting from US imperialism?
- shmeeed 3mo agoThis was not the point of GP's comment. The point was that your reductive take on the military-industrial complex as "a few dozen psychopaths" is simplistic and won't help you understand your opposition. Also, please refrain from making personal allegations.
- watwut 3mo agoThings that benefit only few can persist for a very long time. And US politics is full of those.
- ericmay 3mo agoWhat diplomatic means should the United States (why the US and not others) take to stop Russia in Ukraine, stop Iran in the Middle East, stop North Korea, and stop China and its support for Russia or insistence of attacking Taiwan? Certainly there is some room for negotiation and diplomacy and frankly I think we've tried that and tried it until it was clearly insane and then we still tried it. We (the west) tried to invite Russia to NATO and we opened up Europe to Russian gas. We tried the JCPOA with Iran. We have no clue what to do with North Korea. And we pushed for Chinese entry into the WTO only for them to backstab the west.
- shimman 3mo agoConflating China with Russia is absolutely bonkers. No need to comment when you're already engorged on propaganda. Also don't understand what point you're trying to make outside of the US being explicitly poor actors that ignore treaties, allies, and are willing to start wars to run cover for unpopular domestic leadership while causing the unnecessary deaths of millions of people across the world. Also WTF does backstab even mean in this context? That China didn't bend over and allow US corporations to rat fuck their country dry? Who exactly benefits from enriching US corporations here? It's assuredly not US citizens. Good grief.
- strangegecko 3mo agoI'm guessing with backstabbing he means China's practice of stealing technology and closing off the market for foreign companies. Lots of smaller and mid sized companies that tried to invest in the Chinese market lost everything because the government protected and supported local copycats, with no intention of giving the foreign company fair access to the market.
- ericmay 3mo agoThanks yes. You can read about Germany shedding 10,000 manufacturing jobs a month for yourself here: https://www.wsj.com/economy/china-is-devastating-the-last-stronghold-of-german-industry-c7a98514?st=RF4pLR https://www.wsj.com/economy/china-is-devastating-the-last-st... And let’s not forget China’s helping of Russia to prosecute its war in Ukraine by training soldiers [1] and providing dual use technology access. It’s interesting how the OP that you responded to was quick to start slinging accusations of propaganda and react so violently without even asking a clarifying question. Well, let’s just say some of us read those comments with a little extra interest. [1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/04/ukraine-war-briefing-germany-calls-reports-russian-soldiers-are-being-trained-in-china-deeply-disturbing?CMP=share_btn_url https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jul/04/ukraine-war-br...
- chasd00 3mo ago> The US has a tradition of large, supposedly secure bases in the rear. The USAF has relied on this since WWII. It's not working any more. I guess we're all guerrilla fighters now.
- Animats 3mo ago"The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea" - Mao Guerrilla forces have to be popular, or at minimum, have the local population cowed. They're useful for kicking an oppressor out of your own country, but not for conquest.