6 ms·

I 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 witho

• shin_lao 14y ago
  Exactly. If red were a real country, it would fear nuclear retaliation. There's a limit to asymmetric warfare.
  • fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
    What if Red weren't a country, but a widely dispersed group of people? Or, even a faction within a country?
    • adestefan 14y ago
      Then I doubt they'd be able to launch enough cruise missiles to sink 10 cruises and 5 amphibious ships.
  • polymatter 14y ago
    If 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 ago
      There 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.
      • polymatter 14y ago
        I was trying to illustrate a situation where the nuclear deterrent definitely doesn't apply. I'll remove some conditions then. In a war situation, Red will take out a Blue carrier regardless of Blue's nuclear deterrent because they are at war. The nuclear deterrent makes Red reluctant to get to the point of war. Once at war, Red will either surrender under the threat (and hence not be a threat), or call Blue's bluff. Edit: Also, the position that "they wouldn't dare take out my carrier because of the atrocity I'd do to them in return" is not a sensible military strategy during war.
        • talmand 14y ago
          While the nuclear capabilities may not deter the beginning of the war but if the political will is there to use that capability after such an attack, then it would possibly be a short war. So Red decides to strike and Blue returns with a nuke or three or dozen, exercise over. What's the point in that? But you are right, history shows that a "deterrent" of any nature, not just related to war, is often not considered leading up to whatever it is supposed to deter.
        • bd_at_rivenhill 14y ago
          Use of nuclear weapons against primary (i.e. military) targets that are isolated from civilian populations would not be an atrocity in this case. If e.g. Iran were to manage to sink a US aircraft carrier, I have no doubt that they would see the business end of some W80s, and justifiably so.
          • ucee054 14y ago
            and justifiably so Yeah! How dare they defend their own country! </sarcasm>
        • shin_lao 14y ago
          Of course nuclear deterrent doesn't apply in all cases and Red will definitely try to neutralize as many targets as they can and if they can sink all ships they will (that's what Japan tried to do in Pearl Harbor after all). However, where I feel we disagree is that how Red does it is important as they don't want to allow Blue to gain allies or to give the possibility to Blue to react in a way that would otherwise been politically impossible (ie nuclear weapons).
  • sgift 14y ago
    Give red the nuclear option too. Now, blue will think twice before they react with nuclear retaliation to asymmetric warfare.
    • talmand 14y ago
      Well, in that case that's no different than assuming that neither side has nukes with the same result. But considering the origin of the Red force, it is fair to assume that they do not have nuke capability. If they did, it would likely be limited in nature.
      • sgift 14y ago
        I don't see the reason for this assumption, e.g. Russia has a nearly unlimited nuclear weapon arsenal but probably very limited options regarding "network-centric warfare" (at least as far as I know) - so, using the techniques the red forces used in this scenario to overwhelm the "network-centric" enemy sounds completely reasonable.
        • talmand 14y ago
          The exercise did not use Russia as a possible origin for the Red Force, it was an unknown adversary from the Middle East. Therefore, you could have different assumptions about the rules of engagement, responses, and enemy resources. From what I understand of the exercise, it was to simulate going to war with an adversary that would fight differently because of the lack of modern military resources and hardware. I wouldn't categorize Russia in that way.
  • rwallace 14y ago
    I find it difficult to believe the US government would be crazy enough to resort to first use of nuclear weapons in response to a legitimate use of conventional weapons. The legitimate purpose of a nuclear arsenal is retaliation in the event an enemy uses weapons of mass destruction, not playing sore loser in a conventional battle.
  • angersock 14y ago
    Eh, I don't think so. The only countries I think have the sheer gall/crazy to use nukes would be China, India, Israel, or Pakistan. Russia, the US, etc. hopefully still remember enough of the Cold War to be very bearish on the use of nukes in response to a conventional attack.
• fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  >... he was given an impossibly powerful position -- a military force with the sole objective of military victory without any underlying political objective. If we're going to spend resources the way that we do, our .mil ought to be able win against exactly such a case. In fact, I think the scenario could go worse for our .mil. Consider the case that we simply misjudge the political objective, which arguably could lead to more dire tactical mistakes. I've seen no reason to think that our .mil are immune from such a prospect. Nor do I think a prudent military planner would fail to consider it. >If this were a real war, with an underlying political simulation, 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". I keep hearing that argument about our military's capabilities, with specific respect paid to the technological capabilities. Yet, I observe results that suggest very strongly the notion that we have placed unwarranted faith in our ability to make effective use of tech. Unfortunately for us, such faith can serve no useful purpose and has no place in the mind of one making battle plans. I think they were right to restart the war game, let them evolve their tactics; but, not to hobble Van Riper and turn the exercise into a quarter-billion dollar (false) confidence building exercise. You'd also have to think that troops are incredibly stupid if you expect them to fall for it.
  • Retric 14y ago
    The US military can destroy any other nations ability to make war. Our total losses in post invasion Iraq where minimal despite a fairly active insurgency. (We lost significantly more people in larger battles of past wars.) And that's about the limit of what it's possible to do with a military. Now, clearly the military has significant limits, but at some point you need to decide it's time to use a different tool.
    • stcredzero 14y ago
      If Iraq can use such tactics to sink an aircraft carrier, the US had better pay attention. "Using different tools," may well be a key outcome.
      • 14y ago
• larrydag 14y ago
  I haven't read up on the whole story but I did not see anywhere that Blue was limited in their rules of engagement. In my point of view Red showed a severe weakness in Blue's supposed superior electronic warfare capability.
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• polymatter 14y ago
  Actually, that sounds like an excellent thing to drill into soldiers _not_ to do in response. I want soldiers who don't go all My Lai (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Lai_Massacre) in response to one setback.
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
• ucee054 14y ago
  In reality Blue would not do that because then they wouldn't have access to petroleum ever again. All the mideast oil would be burned. Mad Max, anyone?
  • arethuza 14y ago
    Assuming a "like for like" attack I would assume that Blue would use a tactical nuke on a Red military base of roughly the same population as the number of casualties on the ships. Only a lunatic would go straight to a city-busting attack with strategic weapons.
  • jules 14y ago
    You are grossly overestimating the damage of a nuclear strike.
  • ucee054 14y ago
    I am referring to Red's torpedoes, asymmetric attacks and possible multiple thermobaric strikes specifically targeted at the oil. Red doesn't have MAD, but Red does have a deterrent.
• deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
• stcredzero 14y ago
  > I 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 I think it would have been interesting to saddle Van Riper with political objectives, then restart the simulation. Saddling him with tactical handicaps only served to validate the status quo. > 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". Or the opposition party in Blue's home would have used this chance to take control, with the narrative that the former leaders acted foolishly and got our nose bloody. Getting the most for our defense allocated tax dollars is sacrificed for political gain. So too is the US geopolitical position gamed for the sake of politics and money.
• pippy 14y ago
  It would be interesting if during the 2003 Iraq war if Saddam had organised a retaliation instead of looting his own country. [1] Causalities on both sides could have easily increased by a factor of 10. If the U.S. resorted to a full on genocide the situation would have escalated, possibly brining other nations (even westernised ones) into the mix. It wouldn't have been pretty. 1 http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/06/sprj.nilaw.bank/ http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/06/sprj.nilaw.ban...