3 ms·

So what happens if we find ourselves in a war of attrition again? Most/all of the potential opponents in such a war are nuclear powers so it's theoretically not

So what happens if we find ourselves in a war of attrition again? Most/all of the potential opponents in such a war are nuclear powers so it's theoretically not a possibility but history is littered with theoretical impossibilities made real. It seems like we have all of these incredibly dominant and expensive weapons but only a relatively tiny supply, no timely and cost-effective way to replace losses, and not many options if they run out. I didn't attend a service academy so maybe I'm missing something, but what if the initial battle is not decisive and after 6 months of somehow-only-conventional war there are no more LRSBs or F-22s or whatevers?

adventured 12y ago
The other major nuclear powers are no more capable of fighting a war of attrition than the US is. Further, the US is highly unlikely to be dumb enough to fight a war in China or Russia. That would require ten million soldiers just to get started anyway. It simply isn't going to happen, any more than Russia or China are going to cross the Pacific or Atlantic and invade the US. China has very little capability to project outside its borders, and is in the process of modernizing its military and shrinking its forces. Russia has zero capability of projecting serious conventional might outside of its borders, or those extremely close by. So what war of attrition is likely to occur? Whatever that is, it'll be fought closer to the enemy's backyard, than the US backyard. The US has military bases all around the planet, nobody else does. So the US can strike, perpetually, at foreign targets via force projection, while limiting damage to its domestic manufacturing capabilities. Said manufacturing capabilities would be, much like WW2, ramped up to meet demand. The US has a massive labor pool, and if desperately needed, could grant citizenship to tens of millions from Latin America in exchange for building armaments in factories. Unlike China, the US is capable of 100% domestic commodity supply, and if pressed can also fulfill all of its own manufacturing and technology needs (which China can as well, but they don't have the domestic commodities the US possesses). To win a war of attrition, in a conventional war, the US could simply spam the construction of new B-52s and bombs, and then leverage its global bases, pressing an unrelenting bombing campaign taking out all of the enemy's manufacturing capabilities. No present or likely future enemies of the US could strike back at the US domestically for any sustained period of time. Now, if we're talking China in 30 years, will they be able to project across the Pacific all the way to Hawaii and California? Interesting question, it's going to depend on whether their economy melts down due to the hyper debt accumulation they're undergoing now, and whether they end up in perpetual debt stagnation like Japan (while their demographics melt simultaneously, and the demand for entitlements to take care of the elderly soars, sapping their financial capabilities even further).
- jacquesm 12y ago
  Another way to look at those bases is to think of them as already captive American troops. You can project power all you want but if your runway has been bombed you're not going anywhere. Having your troops stationed the world over is both an advantage and a disadvantage, it allows your enemies to strike you the world over rather than just on your own soil. See: USS Cole, Ein al-Asad and so on. As for the US's ability to strike perpetually at foreign targets: that's limited to those targets that the US does not depend on in any economic capacity and only holds true as long as oil flows.
- hessenwolf 12y ago
  America is unlikely to be dumb enough to fight a war in China and Russia, but a proxy war with China and/or Russia is likely. Russia had some key victories with really simple mass produced blanket bombing kit, simple tanks, ak47s, etc (there to be good at putting old crap together to build your solution: находчиво (nahohdchihvy)).
cturner 12y ago
It's a good question to ask, but the US would be far better placed to respond to this kind of attrition than any other nation. There'll be a stack of spare capacity in the training system and well-mothballed in airplane graveyards. The US is also awash with spare capacity in pilots. The carrier groups can be redeployed to weak areas. Plus diversified economy, good situation with food and energy sufficiency, transport redundancy, friendly border neighbours. Negotiations between Australia and the US have ended with parts for planes being exchanged (trade agreement in late 90s). Extra parts for previous-generation planes are high-value to partners, near-zero marginal cost to the US.
pjc50 12y ago
You already are in a war of attrition and have been since October 2001. The attrition is of men and lightweight materiel rather than the fancy weapon systems. The war in Ukraine in particular will be fought with deniable proxy forces on both sides.

adventured 12y ago

The other major nuclear powers are no more capable of fighting a war of attrition than the US is. Further, the US is highly unlikely to be dumb enough to fight a war in China or Russia. That would require ten million soldiers just to get started anyway. It simply isn't going to happen, any more than Russia or China are going to cross the Pacific or Atlantic and invade the US. China has very little capability to project outside its borders, and is in the process of modernizing its military and shrinking its forces. Russia has zero capability of projecting serious conventional might outside of its borders, or those extremely close by. So what war of attrition is likely to occur? Whatever that is, it'll be fought closer to the enemy's backyard, than the US backyard. The US has military bases all around the planet, nobody else does. So the US can strike, perpetually, at foreign targets via force projection, while limiting damage to its domestic manufacturing capabilities. Said manufacturing capabilities would be, much like WW2, ramped up to meet demand. The US has a massive labor pool, and if desperately needed, could grant citizenship to tens of millions from Latin America in exchange for building armaments in factories. Unlike China, the US is capable of 100% domestic commodity supply, and if pressed can also fulfill all of its own manufacturing and technology needs (which China can as well, but they don't have the domestic commodities the US possesses). To win a war of attrition, in a conventional war, the US could simply spam the construction of new B-52s and bombs, and then leverage its global bases, pressing an unrelenting bombing campaign taking out all of the enemy's manufacturing capabilities. No present or likely future enemies of the US could strike back at the US domestically for any sustained period of time. Now, if we're talking China in 30 years, will they be able to project across the Pacific all the way to Hawaii and California? Interesting question, it's going to depend on whether their economy melts down due to the hyper debt accumulation they're undergoing now, and whether they end up in perpetual debt stagnation like Japan (while their demographics melt simultaneously, and the demand for entitlements to take care of the elderly soars, sapping their financial capabilities even further).

jacquesm 12y ago
Another way to look at those bases is to think of them as already captive American troops. You can project power all you want but if your runway has been bombed you're not going anywhere. Having your troops stationed the world over is both an advantage and a disadvantage, it allows your enemies to strike you the world over rather than just on your own soil. See: USS Cole, Ein al-Asad and so on. As for the US's ability to strike perpetually at foreign targets: that's limited to those targets that the US does not depend on in any economic capacity and only holds true as long as oil flows.
hessenwolf 12y ago
America is unlikely to be dumb enough to fight a war in China and Russia, but a proxy war with China and/or Russia is likely. Russia had some key victories with really simple mass produced blanket bombing kit, simple tanks, ak47s, etc (there to be good at putting old crap together to build your solution: находчиво (nahohdchihvy)).

cturner 12y ago

It's a good question to ask, but the US would be far better placed to respond to this kind of attrition than any other nation. There'll be a stack of spare capacity in the training system and well-mothballed in airplane graveyards. The US is also awash with spare capacity in pilots. The carrier groups can be redeployed to weak areas. Plus diversified economy, good situation with food and energy sufficiency, transport redundancy, friendly border neighbours. Negotiations between Australia and the US have ended with parts for planes being exchanged (trade agreement in late 90s). Extra parts for previous-generation planes are high-value to partners, near-zero marginal cost to the US.

pjc50 12y ago

You already are in a war of attrition and have been since October 2001. The attrition is of men and lightweight materiel rather than the fancy weapon systems. The war in Ukraine in particular will be fought with deniable proxy forces on both sides.