7 ms·
Millennium Challenge 2002 - military simulation
- blablabla123 14y agoThis sounds completely insane ;)
- vrta 14y agoI expected to read that Van Riper died of natural causes later that year.
- RobotCaleb 14y agoIs that really what you expected?
- nawitus 14y agoThere's also been some criticism about Riper's claims, that the simulation was completely unrealistic. That said, it's not very constructive to use simulations to prove points about war strategy, because simulations are pretty much always rigged to let one side win.
- Sumaso 14y agoAn old story but a good one. Reminds me of the documentary "The Fog of War".
- LiamMcCalloway 14y agoA good watch before The Gatekeepers, both on its on terms and as on of the inspirations for the The Gatekeepers' director Dror Moreh.
- rangibaby 14y agoBasically, the low-tech commander "hacked" the wargame by using his forces effectively in unexpected ways. The USA invasion force cheated by bringing dead forces back to life (respawning?!) and forcing the enemy to do what they were "meant to". If only it were that easy in real life.
- randallsquared 14y agoI've read that many of the operations Red "performed" worked only by fiat. Motorcycle messengers delivered messages without fail and instantaneously, cruise missiles were mounted on boats which in real life would be arguably too small to support them, etc.
- kaoD 14y agoThe point here is that he was successful recognizing valuable vectors of attack. Red did a great job using his most valuable resources.
- talmand 14y agoBut the comment suggests that some of the vectors of attack were essentially impossible. One could dream up several possible ways to attack a superior force but that doesn't mean they would all actually work.
- kaoD 14y agoWho cares? It's an abstraction. Blue should've used his best bets just like in real life. Both were aware of the rules.
- talmand 14y agoWell, if we're allowed to use methods that are essentially impossible; then in my fabricated arsenal for our simulation I have a weapon that destroys all resources of the opposing force and places all their personnel in a location of my choosing with the push of a big, red button. After all, who cares if our simulation attempts to simulate realistic conditions?
- kaoD 14y agoYou're implying Red controlled the simulation. He didn't. Red just took advantage of it (just like we take advantage of real life mechanics). The one who's to blame is whoever built the simulation, not Red for using it. Are atomic bombs cheating? Because they're ridiculously powerful. They must be a bug in simulation, right? :P > I have a weapon that destroys all resources of the opposing force That's the atomic bomb.
- bcoates 14y agoI get Van Riper's point, but at the same time he was given an impossibly powerful position -- a military force with the sole objective of military victory without any underlying political objective. If this were a real war, with an underlying political situation, and Red sank an Blue aircraft carrier and killed 20,000 sailors in a day in a preemptive strike, Blue would respond with rules of engagement that would redefine the term "atrocity". This wouldn't make for a useful military exercise, and I don't think anyone wants to see the US military practicing simulated genocide just to maintain realism.
- shin_lao 14y agoExactly. If red were a real country, it would fear nuclear retaliation. There's a limit to asymmetric warfare.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y agoWhat if Red weren't a country, but a widely dispersed group of people? Or, even a faction within a country?
- adestefan 14y agoThen I doubt they'd be able to launch enough cruise missiles to sink 10 cruises and 5 amphibious ships.
- polymatter 14y agoIf I am a self-obsessed evil dictator who is threatened with certain defeat, you think I am going to hold off on that master plan to take out a Blue carrier on the basis that Blue might nuke me?
- shin_lao 14y agoThere are too many if's. If you're threatened by certain defeat, I think your immediate concern is saving your own skin or avoid being back-stabbed. But this is a thought experiment. You could come up with a scenario where it's untrue, but that would only be a scenario. Additionally, if you're faced with certain defeat, this means you've lost significant deterrence. If not, it would be more intelligent to exhibit your capabilities to negotiate a truce. War is a power struggle.
- jessriedel 14y agoI've heard this story before and don't necessarily doubt it, but it does seem a bit romantic. Fits too easily in with everyone's favorite criticism of the military. Does anyone have a version not based on Riper's account?
- Chico75 14y agoDespite the lack of sources, some people on reddit provided a more realistic analysis of this story : http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/18tsda/til_that_in_2002_a_retired_marine_corps_general/c8hyv61 http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/18tsda/til_th...
- jessriedel 14y agoYea, this is the type of criticism I expect, but it's pretty useless so long as the source is "another reddit thread I read and can only partially remember".
- mjs 14y agoWhat is real and what is simulated in war games such as this? It apparently cost US$250m, so you'd think some of it would be real but for example were real motorcycle messengers used to transmit messages to real front-line troops? Were ships actually moved? Were cruise missiles actually fired?
- cadab 14y agoI'm guessing that alot of it was real, but stuff like cruise missile strikes would just be simulated due to the cost/risk.
- kevincennis 14y ago"Risk" is a funny way of putting it.
- adestefan 14y agoIt's mostly simulated. The cost is in the simulation plus the tons of people it takes to create and run a game of this massive scale.
- larrydag 14y agoSo basically its just a QuakeCon?
- nlh 14y agoGreat question. I've always been curious exactly how the mechanics of a "war game" work - the technical mechanics. How exactly is a cruise missile simulated, how do you determine whether a ship is sunk, etc. I wonder if the software systems the mil uses literally have a simulation mode? Anyone with details on this - some info would be hugely appreciated!
- venus 14y agoFrom the wikipedia links, I thought this was a good analysis: http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&IBLOCK_ID=35&PAGE=1 http://www.exile.ru/articles/detail.php?ARTICLE_ID=6779&...
- bjhoops1 14y agoMalcolm Gladwell has a chapter on this in his book Blink. Really interesting read about how frequently instinctual, snap decisions (Red team) based off of limited information result in better results than overly analyzed decisions based off of loads and loads of information (Blue team).
- 542458 14y agoThe Wikipedia article doesn't really communicate what happened very well IMHO. This experiment was never designed to examine the combat capabilities of the US Navy. It was designed to test concepts related to a new concept called Net-centric warfare. It was a new concept to handle information and the sharing of information. In order to test this concept under different conditions, things had to be scripted so that those conditions would occur and the information dissemination concept could be examined. What this Van Riper did is similar to helping somebody practice football kick returns, but instead of helping, just repeatedly running regular offensive formations. I'm not necessarily saying Riper was wrong, but I just wanted to point out that the motivation for the reset runs deeper than "the games were designed to let blue win".
- stcredzero 14y agoAre there any RTS games which could be used to play out Red vs. Blue? Seems like Iran paid attention, and they've been developing doctrine and hardware based on Millenium Challenge. If I were the US, I would be developing weapons and tactics against Van Riper's. (Like stealth drones that can target motorcycle messengers.)
- saurabh 14y agoThe documentary "The Perfect War" mentioned in the article seems unavailable on the interwebs.
- alan_cx 14y agoInitially I was full of thoughts and comments to do with low tech and olde skool methods easily taking on big political, policing and military forces, etc. Often this comes to mind when I hear the authorities talking about terrorists using the internet and cell phones for communicating, and getting caught. What's wrong the the old dead drop, human courier, etc, I think. And MC02 is another great example. But I bet we all think that. So... boring!!!! However, having read this, the comments here and particularly the article in exile.ru, Im wondering about the problem of the aircraft carrier. As I understand it, the point of these things is to plonk a use-able base near or in the theatre of operations. "Projecting power" is the phrase, I believe. Anyway, these operations, and other examples, talk about being 100 miles off shore, or something similar, and there for being vulnerable to small mass attacks, one of operations, or what ever. The conclusion seems to be that aircraft carriers are vulnerable sitting ducks, and there for useless. Further, carrier owners are some how wrong for wanting, using or advocating them. I disagree. If one is going to engage in this sort of war, a base near where the war is to be fought is essential. The US (China, Russia, etc) cant do war in the middle east (or anywhere not close to the people doing war) with out some thing like a carrier, unless suddenly the locals get friendly and allow huge US bases on their land. Yes, deals were, are and will be done, but its not comprehensive or ideal. If it were, heh, why war? Oops, tangent... Anyway, point being, the carrier is as vital as it is vulnerable. What needs to be sorted out is how you get them in place, then defend them. But IMHO, they are certainly not worthless, useless, or even slightly redundant. They are literally a part of the country that can be manoeuvred to different places. If you can't do that, you can easily do major war 1000's of miles away. Edit: Or, I read too much Tom Clancy....