I guess that depends on what the war hopes to achieve. Otherwise, Afghanistan is laughing at the musings of these military circles.
Yeah, while I see the logic in the idea of being in a post-industrial warfare age, I’m not sure it is an accurate assumption. It is predicated among other things on the combatants being in a position where the decision to continue the war or not is a rational choice, where the smart thing to do from the utilitarian perspective is to admit defeat and stop fighting. I’m not at all sure that would be the case in anything other than a grossly mismatched conventional conflict like 2003 Iraq.
In 1941, the Germans had similar ideas about invading the USSR. They rightly anticipated that they had operational and tactical superiority over the numerically substantial but much less effective Soviet forces. They rightly anticipated they would be able to virtually annihilate the Russians deployed in the frontier region. They even began to plan the follow on campaigns elsewhere as, in the first few weeks, they encircled and destroyed or captured hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops and dozens of formations.
But the Russians refused to cooperate. Every rational calculation pointed towards capitulation as the only logical choice. Of course, the Germans were themselves partly responsible. Along with sheer Russian doggedness, the fact that the Nazis were waging an openly-proclaimed war of annihilation against the Slavic peoples as well as the Soviet state kind of left the Russians feeling like there was no upside to surrender, and thus no downside to continued resistance. The Germans committed one of those sins that usually shows up at the tactical scale, backing the enemy into a corner where they have no real reason not to fight to the death. There was no way out for the USSR other than victory.
Now, no one is saying there are bunches of similar situations lurking around the globe today, but any conflict pitting the USA, Russia, or China, at the very least, against any off the others in anything other than a proxy type or limited war far from anyone’s homeland is unlikely to be the type of conflict where one side can actually give up, short of having their entire leadership wiped out, and even then, I’d be kind of doubtful. That’s if you could actually pull off a massive battle of annihilation in the first place.
Enidigm
1755
Afghanistan has no power projection. They can make it impossible to beat them, but Afghanistan isn’t going to destroy American fleets and blockade the US coastline.
Once the US or China had won or lost the high end battle it’s the victor’s war to lose at that point and can dictate strategic options. The thing with the US is that generally the US hadn’t been interested in total war - imagine if the US and China did enter a war, and the loser of that initial engagement suddenly had every port, every major airport, every non nuclear power plant, and every major railroad destroyed 2 weeks afterwards.
Maybe the US can’t really “Beat” China, as in occupy its capital Risk style, but in theory it could essentially turn China into a kind of massive ghetto until gunboat diplomacy got the results it wanted.
Basically imo military planners are willing to sacrifice operational efficiency in this 4th Gen asymmetry warfare stuff in order to have parity or superiority for mainline deterrence. 5 thousand WW2 aircraft are probably better suited to Afghanistan level warfare than four dozen stealth bombers, but those same aircraft are just metal coffins in a mainline conflict.
Yeah, the psychology of this is important. Those old systems may be operationally effective but they won’t have a deterrent effect like new stuff. I doubt anyone wants a full-on war, because there’s only a nebulous area between skirmishes and things getting so serious it goes to nukes.
schurem
1757
This is most certainly true. But the old adagium still stands: si vis pacem, para bellum.
Teiman
1758
The oposite is also true. A new technology can trigger a war, because old deterrants not long works.
Like drones can sature the air with so many signals, that radars no long are useful, making a air attack against another country easier so you destroy these radars and key infrastructure.
Or a new anti-warship missile can make a war against a naval force more interesting.
I hope in my life I don’t get to see a nuclear war.
Maybe? It all depends on how you prepare. Showing potential adversaries that you have the capability to robustly defend yourself, making aggression unwise, is one thing. Amassing forces near borders, building up obvious offensive capabilities, and saber rattling are another.
And this is why China’s current strategic planning is area denial that would make it impossible for the US to put itself in this position, without going to MAD.
I think China still understands it loses straight-up militarily to the US, but their goal is to make the US have to commit all-in if it does come down to military. They’re betting the US won’t do a first nuclear strike (and China definitely won’t be the first to nuke)
Also, as Teiman states, some of the things he describes are the exact strategies China is implementing as its doctrine now. Their main goal is to make it impossible for carrier groups to operate within their sphere of influence. This is the focus of their navy and missile defense forces.
Thank you for this. I was unfamiliar with the battle or the channel. It was an inspiring account. It also reminded me to check in with some older Navy vets that I have not talked to recently during COVID.
“The Johnston moved to engage. Because of course it did.” (from memory, so not exact)
Banzai
1763
Right? ‘and then it proceeded to shoot up the superstructure of the heavy cruiser’
that was definitely the little destroyer that could.
What’s annoying about Wikipedia is that the story of the USS Johnson is different now than when i read it just a few days ago. There was an anecdote about survivors of the ship seeing a Japanese captain saluting the ship as it fired the last salvo into it that’s now gone, for ex.
pyrhic
1765
CVE: Combustible, Vulnerable and Expendable…lol, hadn’t heard that before
Seeing the ship under attack from a heavy cruiser, it promptly shoots up this ship as well.
Because of course it does.
His pronunciation of Japanese ship names bothered me, but his dry British wit was pretty funny.
Usually entries like that disappear because they cannot be sourced.
That particular anecdote comes from Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, a publication of the United States Navy’s Naval History and Heritage Command. It was referenced in the wikipedia article and removed in an edit that was described as “removed ridiculous peacock phrasing”.
The comment section is exactly what you would think it should be, sadly.
Ran into a Seabee during my time in. They are pretty hardcore folks, and smart too.
It’s fair to say that the headline should read “Seabees build new desk for vice president…”
If the president is going to be sitting behind a desk made out of a British warship, the least we could do is have the Veep sit behind an American one!
