Generational Dynamics World View News

[Xeraphim1]

Take a look at US naval strategy for the North Atlantic back in the 1980's; the Soviet Northern Fleet was designed specifically to kill US carriers. There aren't any truly new weapon types while US fleet defenses have greatly increased in capability.

The myth is that it's easy to kill carriers and yet most major countries have them or are building. US; UK; France; China; Russia; Japan; South Korea; India; Italy. With that many countries building, perhaps the myth is just that.

I am still very curious as to what the great increases to US fleet defenses are.

Carriers are still the "prestige weapon", like Battleships still were pre WW2. Of course many thought that newer BB designs would make them "unsinkable" and that increased AA armament would protect them from newer threats. Even Japan had such advocates.

Well, we will shortly see.

Personally, I think that missile barrages will overwhelm the CV group. And of course there can be long range guided nuclear tipped torpedoes. Also, vast improvements in mine warfare have also happened, but are commonly overlooked.

While some of the battleship admirals refused to face the facts, the writing was on the wall in 1921 when Mitchell sunk Ostfriesland with air delivered bombs. Battleships really had no chance since aircraft were faster and much longer ranged. Today, various countries aren't spending billions on carriers out of vanity, but out of a realization of the unique benefits they offer.

Missile barrages need to first find the target which is constantly moving and then get though all the dedicated firepower designed expressly to stop such barrages. While not impossible, it's not as easy as you might think. Torpedoes have a relatively short range and require a sub to get pretty close to actually fire them. Plus, using a nuclear weapon opens the door to having them be used against you. I think China would think very hard about that.

[Navigator]

While some of the battleship admirals refused to face the facts, the writing was on the wall in 1921 when Mitchell sunk Ostfriesland with air delivered bombs. Battleships really had no chance since aircraft were faster and much longer ranged. Today, various countries aren't spending billions on carriers out of vanity, but out of a realization of the unique benefits they offer.

Missile barrages need to first find the target which is constantly moving and then get though all the dedicated firepower designed expressly to stop such barrages. While not impossible, it's not as easy as you might think. Torpedoes have a relatively short range and require a sub to get pretty close to actually fire them. Plus, using a nuclear weapon opens the door to having them be used against you. I think China would think very hard about that.

Of course in hindsight we can say that Mitchell's sinking of Ostriesland with bombs showed the future. Yet here are the countries that had serious Battleship construction efforts in the 30s (and into the war): USA, Japan, Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, even USSR (though none of their were continued past start of hostilities). Namely, every major WW2 combatant.

The point is that even when the "writing is on the wall", people still build seriously expensive weapon systems even after they are technically obsolete. Nobody seems to accept that tech has changed until AFTER their obsolete systems are destroyed.

Japan could have had 4-6 more fleet carriers at the start of the war if it hadn't built the Yamato and Musashi (so thank God they did build those worthless monstrosities). Germany ditched completing the Graf Zeppelin. Though they probably needed a few battleships to maintain the "fleet in being" threat, what they got for all their battleships was almost nothing (with the exception of a lucky hit on the Hood). The Italians and French wasted everything they put into BBs. Ours had some value, especially as AAA platforms to protect the carriers.

I kind of agree with you on the nukes, but I think the CCP will wager that a nuke detonation at sea is not enough to trigger thermonuclear exchange over land.

The PLA Navy could have a very long range torpedo or mine type weapons (small nuke tipped) to go after the CV group. Plus they can target missile barrage at start of war using "fishing fleet" shadowing of CV group.

I am still curious as to what the great increases in defensive measures are that you alluded to. Of course if its TSecret, I'll understand.

[tim]

“Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history, commensurate with the American Revolution, Civil War, and twin emergencies of the Great Depression and World War II.”
― William Strauss, The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy

[Cool Breeze]

“Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history, commensurate with the American Revolution, Civil War, and twin emergencies of the Great Depression and World War II.”
― William Strauss, The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy

You think he'll be right, Tim?

[tim]

Time isn't necessarily on China's side, even if it might appear that way. They're only beginning to realize how badly they've screwed themselves over with their one-child policy, not to mention all the environmental damage.

In 1941, Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in part because Germany was as strong as it was ever going to be versus them. If he waited and allowed the Soviets to fully prepare, he'd be in a much worse position. In 1941, the Red Army was still weak and disorganized from the purges.

Similar to the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor. We were mobilizing for war and already matching them in production. If they waited, we'd bury them in ships without firing a shot. (Though we ended up doing so anyway)

I expect China will make a similar calculation, given the demographic and economic problems they're facing. Bad as things are for us, we're doing better than many.

Jeff Nyquist:

I am going by what General Chi said their plan would be. There is also a fear of discovery on the Chinese side. So China and Russian appear to be getting ready for war in the near term. I am told there plan was a Chinese plan to wait until 2035. This surprised me when I heard it. But the same source, with connections in Beijing, says they cannot wait so long to finish us off. Plus, China is now suffering from serious economic dislocations that could bring down their economy within a year. There is an argument now taking place among experts. Will China attack Taiwan in the next six months? Very smart people are saying China will attack. I am fascinated by these arguments but do not think the Chinese strategists are so stupid to seek so small a prize at so great a cost. If they go to war their objective will be to destroy the USA. But who knows? If their economy is in trouble we might be in luck. But can war be avoided? Will they unleash a new strain of COVID now that they have cover? It seems they would.

[tim]

“Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history, commensurate with the American Revolution, Civil War, and twin emergencies of the Great Depression and World War II.”
― William Strauss, The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy

You think he'll be right, Tim?

I can see the uncertainty about the world in the average person now. People who once told me nothing would happen are now telling me they expect a stock market crash and aren't acting rationally.

I talk to older people in their 70's and 80's about the state of things today. They don't know what is going to happen but they all say we can't continue on as we are right now.

[John]

** 14-Oct-2021 World View: Gun battles in Beirut Lebanon

I'm way too sleepy to write a coherent story, but I'm watching this
live on the BBC and it appears to be a really big deal. Here's what I
understand:

• There was a port blast a little over a year ago in Beirut.
  It was huge, and it flattened the entire city. The government
  is to blame.
• The entire economy has collapsed. Electricity is available at
  most two hours a day, and often zero hours a day. The government is
  to blame.
• There has been an investigation to find out who in the government
  is to blame. Rumors are that the investigation is finding Hezbollah
  is to blame, which doesn't surprise me in the least.
• There were protests this morning by Hezbollah protesters and their
  Shia Amal political party demanding
  that the investigation be ended.
• Christian militias tried to end the protests, and this led to the
  gun battles that killed several people. I don't know whether they
  were Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah's (Iran-supported Shia Muslim) Hezbollah /
  Amal people or whether they were Michel Aoun's (Syriac Maronite
  Catholic) Christian militia people.
• Now I do. The dead are five pro-Hezbollah protesters who were
  "shot in the head."
• Switching over to al-Jazeera, where the coverage is much more
  intense: The Christian snipers are shooting from buildings. Hezbollah's
  army is conducting searches of all the building.
• The gun battles are ongoing. The gun battle is now in its fourth
  hour. There are now six people dead.
• It's now escalating -- machine guns, rocket-propelled
  grenades.
• There's talk of a fear of a renewal of the 1980s civil war, but
  that's impossible because Lebanon is in a generational Unraveling era.
  This gun battle is in the generational Democide pattern that describes
  what happens in the decades following an ethnic civil war.

-- Deadly shooting rocks Beirut as tensions over blast probe erupt
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-ea ... 021-10-14/
(Reuters, 14-Oct-2021)

** 17-Jul-21 World View -- Lebanon's self-destruction continues as government collapses again a year after port disaster
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e210717

[John]

** 14-Oct-2021 World View: Gunfight fizzles after five hours

Those who feared a new civil war are relieved that the gunfight
fizzled after almost five hours.

The al-Jazeera reporter Zeina Khodr has described that this gun battle
in an ordinary residential neighborheed, where the apartment building
on one side of the street was mostly occupied by Hezbollah supporters,
while the apartment building on the other side was mostly occupied by
Christians. The Hezbollah protesters went down the street separating
the two neighborhoods So the gunfire, and snipers at the top of the
Christian apartment buildings started shooting at the protesters, and
aiming for their hoods. Hezbollah/Amal calls this an "ambush." After
five hours, the gunfight fizzled, with six people killed and dozen
wounded.

Khodr described the residents of the apartment buildings as elderly
people who remembered bloody civil war and did not want to see it
repeated. This is what always happens after a crisis war. The people
who lived through the war are traumatized and keep the war from
recurring. In the case of an ethnic civil war, the result is
the Democide pattern which means that the government (the winning
side in the civil war) uses violence to keep the losing side
under control.

Since the port explosion in August of last year, Lebanon in general
and Beirut in particular, have been in a deep economic crisis, with no
reliable electricity or water.

Judge Tarek Bitar has been praised by the international community for
being unbiased and transparent in carrying out the investigation.

Hezbollah are demanding that Bitar be removed, and are threatening a
civil war if he isn't removed.

Christians, including president Michel Aoun, are demanding that he
continue with investigation.

There are have any number of political assassinations, and there have
been no investigations. This time, a whole city was blown up, and the
Lebanese people are saying that so many people were traumatized, and
are still traumatized, and are demanding to know who was responsible
for the explosion.

People want to know who owned the ammonium nitrate? Who refused to do
anything about it, though they were warned? Who ordered the ammonium
nitrate to be unloaded from the boat into the port in 2014?

Hezbollah is the major power in Beirut and Lebanon. However, they do
not want the investigation to proceed. The prime minister (Sunni
Muslim) Hassan Diab is apparently allied with Hezbollah. They are
demanding that the investigation end, while many people, especially
the Syriac Maronite Catholics, are demanding that it reach an end.
This disagreement has further frozen an already government that exists
just to protect Hezbollah's power.

The gunfight has fizzled in Beirut, but the situation very tense, with
everybody fearing more violence.

I should add that a lot of the above analysis is based on what I've
been hearing on al-Jazeera, which is funded by Qatar. I don't know
which side the Qatar government is on, although al-Jazeera claims
that it's reporting is independent.

**** Lebanon's 'confessional' system of government

The following is some material that I've written before.

Lebanon has a "dynastic confessional" system of government. Lebanon's
"confessional" system of government is defined in its constitution,
which requires that the three main government offices be occupied by
specific sectarian groups:

• The president, currently Michel Aoun, must be a Syriac
  Maronite Catholic. Michel Aoun is 83 years old.
• The speaker of parliament must be a Shia Muslim. The current
  speaker is Nabih Berri, who has held the position since 1992. The
  Shia Muslim sect in Lebanon is controlled by the terrorist militia
  Hezbollah, which is led by Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah.
• The prime minister, must be a Sunni Muslim. Saad al-Hariri was
  designated for this position, following the resignation of Hassan Diab
  after the August 4 explosion a year ago. Hassan Diab has stayed on in
  a caretaker capacity until political leaders can agree on a new
  premier.

So there are three "branches" of government in Lebanon, but there are
no checks and balances, since the leader of each branch can do
whatever he wants, including skimming money and paying his cronies to
do things like beat up people in the opposition, and there is nothing
to stop them. That's why each branch forms a kind of "dynasty."

** 17-Jul-21 World View -- Lebanon's self-destruction continues as government collapses again a year after port disaster
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/pg/ ... tm#e210717

[Xeraphim1]

While some of the battleship admirals refused to face the facts, the writing was on the wall in 1921 when Mitchell sunk Ostfriesland with air delivered bombs. Battleships really had no chance since aircraft were faster and much longer ranged. Today, various countries aren't spending billions on carriers out of vanity, but out of a realization of the unique benefits they offer.

Missile barrages need to first find the target which is constantly moving and then get though all the dedicated firepower designed expressly to stop such barrages. While not impossible, it's not as easy as you might think. Torpedoes have a relatively short range and require a sub to get pretty close to actually fire them. Plus, using a nuclear weapon opens the door to having them be used against you. I think China would think very hard about that.

Of course in hindsight we can say that Mitchell's sinking of Ostriesland with bombs showed the future. Yet here are the countries that had serious Battleship construction efforts in the 30s (and into the war): USA, Japan, Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, even USSR (though none of their were continued past start of hostilities). Namely, every major WW2 combatant.

The point is that even when the "writing is on the wall", people still build seriously expensive weapon systems even after they are technically obsolete. Nobody seems to accept that tech has changed until AFTER their obsolete systems are destroyed.

Japan could have had 4-6 more fleet carriers at the start of the war if it hadn't built the Yamato and Musashi (so thank God they did build those worthless monstrosities). Germany ditched completing the Graf Zeppelin. Though they probably needed a few battleships to maintain the "fleet in being" threat, what they got for all their battleships was almost nothing (with the exception of a lucky hit on the Hood). The Italians and French wasted everything they put into BBs. Ours had some value, especially as AAA platforms to protect the carriers.

I kind of agree with you on the nukes, but I think the CCP will wager that a nuke detonation at sea is not enough to trigger thermonuclear exchange over land.

The PLA Navy could have a very long range torpedo or mine type weapons (small nuke tipped) to go after the CV group. Plus they can target missile barrage at start of war using "fishing fleet" shadowing of CV group.

I am still curious as to what the great increases in defensive measures are that you alluded to. Of course if its TSecret, I'll understand.

Most countries did see that aircraft carriers were going to be vital if not decisive. More tonnage was put into carriers by Japan, the UK and US. Germany, France and Italy were behind the curve. Germany never completed a carrier but that wasn't really a handicap. The Kriegsmarine would have been better served by not building anything bigger than a heavy cruiser with those not really being necessary. France built only one carrier which was generally inadequate, though it was matching itself against Italy which never completed a carrier at all. None of the last three were real naval powers.

I don't think the US could allow an unanswered nuclear attack on its warships and neither would any other nuclear power. If China were to do so, I think you'd at least see the destruction of a major naval base.

The problem with long range torpedoes is getting them to the target. You're talking a range of maybe 30 miles at most and no warship is going to get that close. Even if they could, how are you going to guide the torpedo to a moving target at that range? In the same manner, no "fishing vessel" will get close to a CBG and they're not designed to carry missiles in any case. Yes, you can modify them to carry a few each, but it's not simple and most boats simply wouldn't have the room for them at all.

For missile defense, look at all the changes since the mid 1980s. The biggest advances are the Aegis Combat System and the Mk 41 VLS. The former is a computer management system along with a 6 MW radar. It can control the engagement of not just the missiles from its own ship, but from other ships in the task force. Newer models can also accept targeting information from E-2s and even F-35s. The newer SM blocks have two way datalinks to receive course updates while in flight while the SM-6 adds the active radar seeker from the AIM-120 AMRAAM. Anything getting through the SM will still need to deal with waves of ESSM, RAM and finally Phalanx CWIS. At the same time there is a lot of ECM being pumped out. Also, laser dazzlers and other laser weapons are finally being added to ships. The capability increase from say, 1980 is massive.

Again, I'm not positing that carriers are invulnerable, but countries operating them take their safety very seriously and devote a lot of effort and money to protecting them. More so than most people realize.

[Xeraphim1]

While some of the battleship admirals refused to face the facts, the writing was on the wall in 1921 when Mitchell sunk Ostfriesland with air delivered bombs. Battleships really had no chance since aircraft were faster and much longer ranged. Today, various countries aren't spending billions on carriers out of vanity, but out of a realization of the unique benefits they offer.

Missile barrages need to first find the target which is constantly moving and then get though all the dedicated firepower designed expressly to stop such barrages. While not impossible, it's not as easy as you might think. Torpedoes have a relatively short range and require a sub to get pretty close to actually fire them. Plus, using a nuclear weapon opens the door to having them be used against you. I think China would think very hard about that.

Of course in hindsight we can say that Mitchell's sinking of Ostriesland with bombs showed the future. Yet here are the countries that had serious Battleship construction efforts in the 30s (and into the war): USA, Japan, Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, even USSR (though none of their were continued past start of hostilities). Namely, every major WW2 combatant.

The point is that even when the "writing is on the wall", people still build seriously expensive weapon systems even after they are technically obsolete. Nobody seems to accept that tech has changed until AFTER their obsolete systems are destroyed.

Japan could have had 4-6 more fleet carriers at the start of the war if it hadn't built the Yamato and Musashi (so thank God they did build those worthless monstrosities). Germany ditched completing the Graf Zeppelin. Though they probably needed a few battleships to maintain the "fleet in being" threat, what they got for all their battleships was almost nothing (with the exception of a lucky hit on the Hood). The Italians and French wasted everything they put into BBs. Ours had some value, especially as AAA platforms to protect the carriers.

I kind of agree with you on the nukes, but I think the CCP will wager that a nuke detonation at sea is not enough to trigger thermonuclear exchange over land.

The PLA Navy could have a very long range torpedo or mine type weapons (small nuke tipped) to go after the CV group. Plus they can target missile barrage at start of war using "fishing fleet" shadowing of CV group.

I am still curious as to what the great increases in defensive measures are that you alluded to. Of course if its TSecret, I'll understand.

There are a lot of things that are still classified so we don't know exactly how they work. For example, the AN/SLQ32 is known to be an ECM system and upgrades have been arriving on ships lately, but there is no information on what it specifically does or what the changes are. Same with some of the laser weapons. ODIN is in testing on a couple ships but we don't know specifically what it can do or the range. We think it's supposed to blind E/O and IR sensors. What's the range? <shrug> HELIOS is much higher power and besides dazzling might also be able to destroy targets, but we don't know details. In the next year or so there should be laser weapons with power in the 300 kW+ range and, after 2025, in the MW range which could take out income ballistic warheads.

The Zumwalt class ships have generally been a failure but one thing they did do right was put in really large electrical generating capacity. My guess is that the replacement for the Burke class destroyers will use the general design of the ship with a lot of power going to directed energy weapons.