Hacker News Reader

Comment by dantillberg | Hacker News Reader

I think about this a lot these days with regard to the US/NATO and land-based combat. We built up power for decades during the cold war to prevail on land against major powers, and our Battle of Trafalgar was Desert Storm in 1991. In the following years, absorbed in our sense of supremacy, we shifted our focus to asymmetrical warfare, optimizing our vehicles and doctrines for light war against dispersed forces mixed with civilians.

I think of this every time I hear, "XXX is irrelevant in this age of asymmetric warfare." Sure, maybe that system or doctrine is not useful when fighting 1,000 militants blended into a city of 1,000,000. But what happens if/when we get into a shooting war with an adversary that has a real army, a real air force, and/or a real navy? Will it look like Desert Storm? Or will it look like the Bay of Pigs invasion? And could the US in 2040 look like France in 1940?

View on HN

No one has a real air force or a real navy except USA. Well some have, but 10% of the size and much poorer trained as well. And air force changed little with respect to asymmetric warfare, and Navy didn't change at all (it only starts to, pouring money into things like lasers to protect from small inflatable boat attacks). They are still pretty much Cold War-ish.

Ground forces will lack artillery pieces and shells and will find its logistics stretched, and tank mods of recent 20 years were going the wrong way for a shooting war, and new combat vehicles like Stryker and not what a real war requires, so it will have some trouble, but ground forces need to act only in the very end - where enemy is softened enough by airstrikes - and that will work whole lot better than in Desert Storm these days. Much more kills per sortie due to all these smart munitions - and there are sufficient numbers of them to break down any armed forces in the world.

So in essence, air force will make sure that every adversary will be pretty soon down to 'asymmetric warfare' level if not completely defeated. Think Russian WWII partisans. And that is what US Army has an excellent experience dealing with.

This is precisely the arrogant ignorance that led to the British Navy's shame with Camperdown and Victoria and then the weak showing at Jutland.

Real soldiers have respect for their adversary and since they practice war in war games, they know that no adversary can be discounted. In particular intelligence and willpower count for far more than weaponry. The film Avatar is another good example of how arrogance about the adversary led to defeat.

The enemy that you need to fear is the one who is not afraid to suffer pain and loss. Like the Soviet Union in WWI for instance. Or Syria's Army nowadays.

No one has a real air force or a real navy except USA. Well some have, but 10% of the size and much poorer trained as well.

Haha, read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

And then there was this: https://cofda.wordpress.com/2015/10/04/u-s-repeatedly-loses-...

Ochmanek has run the two-day table-top exercise eight times now, including at the Pentagon and at Ramstein Air Base, in Germany, with active-duty military officers. “We played it 16 different times with eight different teams,” Ochmanek says, “always with the same conclusion.”

Can you guess what the conclusion was?

I’m convinced that the US needs to differentiate and separately fund resources for limited and unlimited wars. The military has squandered trillions fighting limited wars with assets designed for more conventional wars. It has also led to a less effective effort as the needs of operators on the ground are often disregarded for what the services want to provide to justify funding. Finally, legally separating the two would allow a better application of ROE and help prevent the current state of never ending “war”. The goal being to constantly strive to downgrade from unlimited war, to limited war, to state department diplomacy, with different funding for each and understandable reasons and criteria for transition between the categories.

I totally agree with this. I also think in a large number of conflict situations, the real issue is bootstrapping governance rather than fighting an adversary. Though military protection/action is required due the hostile environment.

Having a group trained and equipped to specifically fight asymmetric warfare is the way to go. They should also be able to help train police, ambulance etc. get basic services working and monitor + prosecute corruption in the regime that's been installed.

There is already a group like that within the US military: Special Forces. And to a certain degree, the Operations division of the CIA. Neither of these approach what you're describing here (if I'm reading your words right) -- and so I think there's room for improvement -- but the seeds for that are already a high priority for our (US) military.

Agreed there's a trend in that direction, but as you say not quite there yet. What I imagine is a unit with the goal of helping civilians as a first priority, but with the full capability to defend themselves and the people they're helping. Similar to the Special Forces but with the priorities reversed.

I wonder if Peace Corps could be included here, or USAID.

Yes absolutely. I think bringing people from some military units and then the Peace Corps, USAID etc. together would be a way to get it happening quickly.

Interestingly -- perhaps you know this already -- the US military keeps a strict segregation between Peace Corps and the military: If you join one, you are forever-banned from joining the other. I'm not sure about the historical reasoning for it, though. Something else interesting: One of my childhood friends joined the Peace Corps, and wherever he went (in Africa), those countries always accused Peace Corps members of being CIA operatives. He was always super defensive about there being no CIA operatives in the Peace Corps, which in its own way was kind of suspicious.

Sorry for slow reply. That is very interesting, I never knew that but I guess it makes perfect sense. What I was/am thinking of is a group that is definitely military, but the goal is governance with the option of lethal force any time the need arises - with or without assistance from external units. If it existed I would have signed up years ago.

> But what happens if/when we get into a shooting war with an adversary that has a real army, a real air force, and/or a real navy?

Either the shooting war ends real quick with a diplomatic solution, or the territories of both adversaries quickly turn into faintly glowing wastelands uninhabitable for a thousand years.

The only warfare that matters today is asymmetrical warfare against relatively low-tech guerrillas and third-tier states. Once you credibly threaten the homeland of any opponent near the US's level of military sophistication, you've already lost the war.

Exactly. For that reason we really should cut the defense budget in half back to pre-9/11 levels. Talk about an easy fix for the US budget problem.

I'd say that you can fight fairly complete proxy wars without ever threatening the homelands of nuclear powers as per the post nuclear gentleman's agreement.

I do largely agree though.

>The only warfare that matters today is asymmetrical warfare against relatively low-tech guerrillas and third-tier states.

No, that's not correct, and is emblematic of the insistence to "always train for the last war." The reality of what future war might look like is much more nuanced than "either MAD or more COIN." General Milley talked about this last summer, and I tend to agree with his assessment. Incidentally his critique is inline with the posted article about mindless obedience.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/miserable-disobedient-vic...

Absolutely nobody insists on only training for the last war. The only people who use that phrase are people who are convinced, beyond all reason, that we're making that mistake; or people who use it as a strawman to criticize arguments concerning priority and budget.

I read the article, but Gen. Milley doesn't make the case for why mutually-assured destruction is no longer relevant (he doesn't mention it at all, actually). After 50 years in which it has arguably been the primary strategic factor maintaining the peace among the great powers, I'm curious about why the future would look different.

The problem with mutually assured destruction is the “assured” part. There is nothing assured about it. Cyber, space, and other weapons could dismantle the assurance and we could be in a totally different warfare environment. Certainly this doesn’t seem to be the case yet, but I wouldn’t make assumptions about the future.

I am honestly puzzled at why you believe this to be the case. I'm not even sure it has ever been the case. Consider, for example, how chemical weapons have never been used in WW2, despite all sides having stockpiles. Consider the fact that MAD deterrent absolutely requires both parties to be in perfect agreement about what level of conflict will trigger MAD. Also a shooting war does not have to ever touch anyone's homeland (not to mention that in a war there is usually a disagreement about what exactly a "homeland" is).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com