Generational Dynamics World View News

[Cool Breeze]

Innocent bystander Samuel Poulin shot in Times Square in broad daylight
https://nypost.com/2021/06/27/innocent- ... -daylight/

Had enough yet?

BLM was way worse than this, and no one even died here. Sad, but essentially non news, though totally stupid and telling for modern America.

[Trevor]

Seems our military is operating on the assumption we're never going to fight another major conflict, certainly not one with a peer competitor like China. I expect all the woke nonsense is going to weaken us before they attack, even if we do jettison it once hostilities begin.

Another good example of an incompetent general would be Westmoreland, whose "body count" strategy for Vietnam was a disaster. Enlisted men fought over the same hill or meadow 3-4 times, which doesn't exactly help morale. Not that "clear and hold" would have guaranteed victory, but it would have had a better chance.

We haven't fought a major naval engagement since WWII, and I've read plenty of discussion about whether aircraft carriers are obsolete. They've been vulnerable since their inception, but had a long-range punch to compensate for it. I expect this isn't something we're going to have a definite answer to until something happens. Given China and Russia are both attempting to build carriers of their own, they clearly don't think them obsolete. The Falklands War is one of very examples we have and even it is 40 years out of date.

One possibility I could think of, given most of the population is physically unfit for service, is recommended and later mandatory exercise programs once war breaks out. Assuming this WWIII occurs, I wouldn't expect nuclear weapons to be used until one side or the other feels pushed into a corner and sees no alternative but to use them.

The easiest way to cripple China's war machine is to blockade the Strait of Malacca. Most of their oil imports go through this narrow strait and if we send a fleet to stop traffic going through it, there's little they could do to stop us. This might change, but this is true for the present time. If they try to go around it, with oil tankers coming from the Middle East, it crosses Australian waters, who happens to be an ally. I find it unlikely Indonesia will join them, either.

[Xeraphim1]

I see so much of this attitude, mostly by anonymous posters. The thing is, do you really think it's better anywhere else? The two largest threats to the US are:

1. Russia which is a criminal enterprise masquerading as a country. There are US states with higher GDPs than all of Russia which has a declining tech base and uncertain (at best) military leadership.

2. A Communist dictatorship with all the loss of military efficiency that entails. Do you think military leadership in China is based on efficiency and intelligence or political reliability?

And Navigator isn't really correct since just about anyone in the US military is intellectually above average; you have to be just to get in. I believe the percentage of people eligible for enlistment is less than 15%. I don't know anything about the general in question, but you shouldn't automatically disparage someone because of a music degree. While it isn't math or engineering, it also isn't ethnic gender studies. Furthermore, the US military is a really big organization and the ability of one person to poison the well is minimal.

While I do share the sentiment that the Pentagon is overly politicized, I also recognize that this certainly isn't the first time it's happened and that top leadership there is much like top leadership anywhere else. The real work is done at much lower levels.

I certainly have in no way suggested, or even intimated, that Russian or Chinese military commanders are better than those of the US. In fact, I agree with you that they have probably also expunged their senior ranks of highly intelligent forward thinking people.

To the next point: You don't have to be very intelligent to get into the US military. You can't be a complete dunce, but the bar is pretty low for intelligence. What keeps most people out are - overweight , lack of physical fitness, a criminal record.

Actually, you do. The minimum ASVAB score for the Army or Navy is 31 corresponding to an IQ of around 92. 32 for Marines and 36 for Air Force or Coast Guard. That means to bottom of the barrel recruits for Army and Navy are roughly average, maybe a little below. This doesn't take into account the fact that the services turn away people with low scores because they aren't very useful. The average IQ in the US military is actually higher than the average IQ for the country in general because there the services need better people. It isn't WWI or WWII days where you just handed someone a rifle and pointed him in a general direction.

I am sure that LTG Mingus was a great platoon leader and even a great battalion commander. Past that level, the need for "smarts" is on the upside of a parabolic curve. While having a music degree doesn't mean you aren't smart (I am married to someone with music degrees), the fact that he has one, and went to a rather lackluster university (which I also am assuming is the best he could get into) means to me that he is one of the group of people who just "got any degree" to go into the military. This of course is not a bad thing. And, like I said, that doesn't mean he's a bad soldier. I am sure he was great at the lower command ranks. It is just that now he is in a position requiring a high level of intelligence and the ability to quickly do complex thinking. (more to follow)

Again, I'm not talking about Mingus in particular since I know little about him. My point is that you can't make a determination on someone based solely on college degree of where they received it. At least half the classes in any major will be the same since schools have basic requirements and I'll argue that the quality of education is more selective schools isn't much better than in less selective schools. I attended highly selective schools and was unimpressed with the quality of the teaching. However, STEM fields are different because the equipment needed is expensive.

BTW, I'm not particularly impressed by Winona State (it's about an hour away) but it does have a ROTC program and it's inexpensive. I think those are likely to have been the most important items for Mingus.

Next point: The well can indeed be poisoned by a single person at or near the top of the military. Here is a short list of examples:
McClellin - the US Civil War ends in 1862 if he isn't around (btw, he was intelligent, just not fit for command, especially a senior command)
Von Molke the Second - Botches the German invasion of France in 1914.
Samsonov - Gets his entire Russian Army surrounded in the first few weeks of WW1.
Any Russian Army Commander in 1941 - the Germans completely destroy them while Russians have a minimum of 3:1 advantage IN DEFENSE.
Admiral Christie - Involved in development of the non-functional US WW2 torpedo. Then stonewalls efforts to fix it during the war. Takes 2 years to sort out what the problem is and fix it.
Gen Fredendall - Disastrous plans and leadership in early WW2 battle of Kassarine Pass. The guy Patton replaces at the start of the movie Patton.

Meh. None of your examples really prove your argument and all are more involved than you're making them.
* McClellan - His main problem is that he consistently overestimated the forces he was facing. Based on his projections his plans were sound and well carried out. He also built the Army of the Potomac which is what decided the war.
* Von Moltke - I don't think you can say he botched the Schlieffen plan which was always very optimistic. Part of the weakening was the sending of forces to East Prussia (see below). Another issue was his deteriorating health due to which he most likely should not have been selected.
* Samsonov - Yes, he did not perform well but part of the blame has to rest on Rennenkampf who was very slow and critically misreported the location of German forces. His slowness allowed the Germans to concentrate their forces including the additional forces sent by von Moltke (see above) on Second Army. Note that the Russians placed the blame on Zhilinskiy.
*Russian army commanders in 1941 - Considering the purge of the Soviet leadership corps by Stalin, it isn't a surprise the survivors performed poorly. They had learned the lesson of obeying even stupid orders since the alternative was execution.
*Fredendall - performed poorly and shouldn't have received the post he did. Marshall made a bad choice.

In any case, by poisoning the well I'm referring to creating widespread negative changes. None of the above did that.

It is true that American general leadership is no worse than elsewhere. This is fitting since we are about to go through a high tech version of World War One. It takes years for the government/establishment to sort through the General ranks and find competent people. This is the same in almost every war. The US was blessed in WW2 with Gen Marshall, who sorted through the senior ranks before the war, and mostly got competent people to the top. Fredendall was his biggest mistake, but Marshall fixed this quickly. We don't have a Marshall right now. And we certainly don't have a Lincoln, who had to do the sorting during the Civil War (and eventually got Grant/Sherman). What we have is the equivalent of British leadership in WW1. This is NOT a good thing. We are about to have a similar experience.

I disagree that a future conflict will have any real similarity to WWI. That war was essentially the same as wars of the previous fifty years except for the scale. A war with China, the only real war looming, would be a fast-paced kinetic war that would need to be decided quickly. It wouldn't even bear much similarity to the last Gulf War. It will also be a war where you fight with what you got since it won't last long enough to replace losses.

[Xeraphim1]

Seems our military is operating on the assumption we're never going to fight another major conflict, certainly not one with a peer competitor like China. I expect all the woke nonsense is going to weaken us before they attack, even if we do jettison it once hostilities begin.

Another good example of an incompetent general would be Westmoreland, whose "body count" strategy for Vietnam was a disaster. Enlisted men fought over the same hill or meadow 3-4 times, which doesn't exactly help morale. Not that "clear and hold" would have guaranteed victory, but it would have had a better chance.

Blame Johnson for this. He was concentrating his efforts on his Great Society programs and didn't care much if US soldiers were dying to no purpose in Vietnam. I put 90% of the blame for Vietnam on the politicians since they set the goals and had the responsibility of ensuring the right people were in charge.

We haven't fought a major naval engagement since WWII, and I've read plenty of discussion about whether aircraft carriers are obsolete. They've been vulnerable since their inception, but had a long-range punch to compensate for it. I expect this isn't something we're going to have a definite answer to until something happens. Given China and Russia are both attempting to build carriers of their own, they clearly don't think them obsolete. The Falklands War is one of very examples we have and even it is 40 years out of date.

For action in the Pacific you either need very long range aircraft (read bombers) or carriers. The people constantly crying that carriers are obsolete ignore all the resources invested into protecting them.

Russia might get their one carrier back into operation in 2023 though it's mostly a prestige toy. China has two more under construction; India has their ridiculously over-priced, limited use Russian carrier, Vikramaditya (which is still better than Russia's) and another (Vikrant) starting sea trials this year. The UK has Prince of Wales doing sea trials. Japan is refitting its Izumo class DDHs to operate F-35Bs. South Korea is looking at building a light carrier operating F-35Bs. It wouldn't be impossible for Australia to convert its Canberra class LHDs to operate F-35Bs. Italy has two carriers with a new one (a replacement for Garibaldi) commissioning next year. Spain still has a STOVL carrier.

It seems a lot of countries are still building these "obsolete" ships.

One possibility I could think of, given most of the population is physically unfit for service, is recommended and later mandatory exercise programs once war breaks out. Assuming this WWIII occurs, I wouldn't expect nuclear weapons to be used until one side or the other feels pushed into a corner and sees no alternative but to use them.

That won't happen. There is a limited need for infantry that we're already satisfying.

The easiest way to cripple China's war machine is to blockade the Strait of Malacca. Most of their oil imports go through this narrow strait and if we send a fleet to stop traffic going through it, there's little they could do to stop us. This might change, but this is true for the present time. If they try to go around it, with oil tankers coming from the Middle East, it crosses Australian waters, who happens to be an ally. I find it unlikely Indonesia will join them, either.

China knows this which is one reason it's been investing in BRI projects in Pakistan and Burma. If war comes it would only be Chinese owned tankers that would attempt to sail to China. Pipelines would probably be easier to protect.

[DaKardii]

CCP propaganda outlet Global Times resorts to racist rhetoric against Anglo-Saxons, says that genocide is embedded in their DNA.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1227315.shtml

[Tom Mazanec]

I am 63 and counting.
I will not be drafted until the enemy is in Ohio.

[Bob Butler]

CCP propaganda outlet Global Times resorts to racist rhetoric against Anglo-Saxons, says that genocide is embedded in their DNA.

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202106/1227315.shtml

I sort of agree that humans tend towards aggressive behavior towards cultures who are unlike them. One could argue that tribal thinking is embedded in the DNA as primitive cultures did tend towards it. But you see the CCP tend towards brinksmanship and the West towards WIERD so saying Anglo Saxons are the worst example today is dubious. It is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

[Navigator]

I see so much of this attitude, mostly by anonymous posters. The thing is, do you really think it's better anywhere else? The two largest threats to the US are:

1. Russia which is a criminal enterprise masquerading as a country. There are US states with higher GDPs than all of Russia which has a declining tech base and uncertain (at best) military leadership.

2. A Communist dictatorship with all the loss of military efficiency that entails. Do you think military leadership in China is based on efficiency and intelligence or political reliability?

And Navigator isn't really correct since just about anyone in the US military is intellectually above average; you have to be just to get in. I believe the percentage of people eligible for enlistment is less than 15%. I don't know anything about the general in question, but you shouldn't automatically disparage someone because of a music degree. While it isn't math or engineering, it also isn't ethnic gender studies. Furthermore, the US military is a really big organization and the ability of one person to poison the well is minimal.

While I do share the sentiment that the Pentagon is overly politicized, I also recognize that this certainly isn't the first time it's happened and that top leadership there is much like top leadership anywhere else. The real work is done at much lower levels.

I certainly have in no way suggested, or even intimated, that Russian or Chinese military commanders are better than those of the US. In fact, I agree with you that they have probably also expunged their senior ranks of highly intelligent forward thinking people.

To the next point: You don't have to be very intelligent to get into the US military. You can't be a complete dunce, but the bar is pretty low for intelligence. What keeps most people out are - overweight , lack of physical fitness, a criminal record.

Actually, you do. The minimum ASVAB score for the Army or Navy is 31 corresponding to an IQ of around 92. 32 for Marines and 36 for Air Force or Coast Guard. That means to bottom of the barrel recruits for Army and Navy are roughly average, maybe a little below. This doesn't take into account the fact that the services turn away people with low scores because they aren't very useful. The average IQ in the US military is actually higher than the average IQ for the country in general because there the services need better people. It isn't WWI or WWII days where you just handed someone a rifle and pointed him in a general direction.

I am sure that LTG Mingus was a great platoon leader and even a great battalion commander. Past that level, the need for "smarts" is on the upside of a parabolic curve. While having a music degree doesn't mean you aren't smart (I am married to someone with music degrees), the fact that he has one, and went to a rather lackluster university (which I also am assuming is the best he could get into) means to me that he is one of the group of people who just "got any degree" to go into the military. This of course is not a bad thing. And, like I said, that doesn't mean he's a bad soldier. I am sure he was great at the lower command ranks. It is just that now he is in a position requiring a high level of intelligence and the ability to quickly do complex thinking. (more to follow)

Again, I'm not talking about Mingus in particular since I know little about him. My point is that you can't make a determination on someone based solely on college degree of where they received it. At least half the classes in any major will be the same since schools have basic requirements and I'll argue that the quality of education is more selective schools isn't much better than in less selective schools. I attended highly selective schools and was unimpressed with the quality of the teaching. However, STEM fields are different because the equipment needed is expensive.

BTW, I'm not particularly impressed by Winona State (it's about an hour away) but it does have a ROTC program and it's inexpensive. I think those are likely to have been the most important items for Mingus.

Next point: The well can indeed be poisoned by a single person at or near the top of the military. Here is a short list of examples:
McClellin - the US Civil War ends in 1862 if he isn't around (btw, he was intelligent, just not fit for command, especially a senior command)
Von Molke the Second - Botches the German invasion of France in 1914.
Samsonov - Gets his entire Russian Army surrounded in the first few weeks of WW1.
Any Russian Army Commander in 1941 - the Germans completely destroy them while Russians have a minimum of 3:1 advantage IN DEFENSE.
Admiral Christie - Involved in development of the non-functional US WW2 torpedo. Then stonewalls efforts to fix it during the war. Takes 2 years to sort out what the problem is and fix it.
Gen Fredendall - Disastrous plans and leadership in early WW2 battle of Kassarine Pass. The guy Patton replaces at the start of the movie Patton.

Meh. None of your examples really prove your argument and all are more involved than you're making them.
* McClellan - His main problem is that he consistently overestimated the forces he was facing. Based on his projections his plans were sound and well carried out. He also built the Army of the Potomac which is what decided the war.
* Von Moltke - I don't think you can say he botched the Schlieffen plan which was always very optimistic. Part of the weakening was the sending of forces to East Prussia (see below). Another issue was his deteriorating health due to which he most likely should not have been selected.
* Samsonov - Yes, he did not perform well but part of the blame has to rest on Rennenkampf who was very slow and critically misreported the location of German forces. His slowness allowed the Germans to concentrate their forces including the additional forces sent by von Moltke (see above) on Second Army. Note that the Russians placed the blame on Zhilinskiy.
*Russian army commanders in 1941 - Considering the purge of the Soviet leadership corps by Stalin, it isn't a surprise the survivors performed poorly. They had learned the lesson of obeying even stupid orders since the alternative was execution.
*Fredendall - performed poorly and shouldn't have received the post he did. Marshall made a bad choice.

In any case, by poisoning the well I'm referring to creating widespread negative changes. None of the above did that.

It is true that American general leadership is no worse than elsewhere. This is fitting since we are about to go through a high tech version of World War One. It takes years for the government/establishment to sort through the General ranks and find competent people. This is the same in almost every war. The US was blessed in WW2 with Gen Marshall, who sorted through the senior ranks before the war, and mostly got competent people to the top. Fredendall was his biggest mistake, but Marshall fixed this quickly. We don't have a Marshall right now. And we certainly don't have a Lincoln, who had to do the sorting during the Civil War (and eventually got Grant/Sherman). What we have is the equivalent of British leadership in WW1. This is NOT a good thing. We are about to have a similar experience.

I disagree that a future conflict will have any real similarity to WWI. That war was essentially the same as wars of the previous fifty years except for the scale. A war with China, the only real war looming, would be a fast-paced kinetic war that would need to be decided quickly. It wouldn't even bear much similarity to the last Gulf War. It will also be a war where you fight with what you got since it won't last long enough to replace losses.

First off, let me say that Xeraphim1, you are indeed a highly intelligent person. Not 1 out of 100,000 would know who Zhilinskiy (or as I know him, Jinlisky) is. So I have to apologize for being somewhat lazy in my debate arguments here, as I tend to only put 5-10 minutes into this site per day. I just hate typing. Wish we could talk instead.

So here are some points which are hopefully a bit better thought out on my end. First off, my impressions of intelligence have more to do with the upwards of a couple of thousand officers that I served with or around during my decades in the service. This is because the basic point I was making was in regards to the knowledge and intelligence of officers in positions of serious responsibility.

I picked on LTG Mingus because, given his highly critical position as the head of Ops/Planning at the Pentagon as the J3, you want someone who is smart, and someone with a deep understanding of military history and current military technology/capabilities, and he seems to come straight out of the mold that I am all too familiar with. These are the people who are Physical Fitness studs, got a degree in whatever to meet the BA requirement the ROTC has for a commission as an officer, and then do not spend any time/effort learning anything more than the service schools have to offer (which is pretty sparse).

Here is my experience in dealing with other officers concerning military history, and this includes West Pointers with actual engineering degrees:
Civil War: North vs South over slavery. It lasted years and was bloody. The North eventually won. Know that Bull Run, Gettysburg, and maybe Shiloh happened, and that Sherman burned Atlanta. Other than that, they don't know many specifics.
WW1: It was a world war. We were in it at some point.
WW2: We landed at Normandy and saved France. There was a Battle of the Bulge. We had Sherman tanks. We defeated Hitler.
Korea: It happened and we are still there to keep it from happening again.
Vietnam: Flying around in helicopters to take out die hard guerilla fighters. A big mess. The politicians let us down.

While this may seem like a giant oversimplification of the lack of understanding of military history, its not. This is literally all that 95% of officers in the US Army today know of military history. Understanding of strategy and operational theory is also unbelievably lacking.

There is a book I found yesterday that seems to substantiate what I personally experienced. It is called "The Generals: American Military Command from World War II to Today" by Thomas Ricks.

What has happened is basically this: all organizations are on a scale with extreme competence of leadership on one extreme (lets say this side is the right side), and extreme incompetence born of cronyism on the other extreme (lets say this is the left side). An example of extreme competence might be something like those leading Intel in the 1980s. The other extreme would be Maduro's cronies in charge of the Venezuelan oil company. Over time, any organization will move from the right to the left unless EXTREME caution is taken. This is even more so the case in governmental organizations that don't produce any kind of measurable output (hence they are missing the feedback that the organization could get from profit or market share). Over time, competence is less and less valued. What becomes more and more valued are your personal connections and ability at "office politics". Competent people are even removed or pushed aside, as those who are less competent and above them get rid of them as threats.

What has happened in the US Military is that to get to the top you have to belong to a specific "club". This club is Airborne (82nd Airborne specifically) Rangers. Without this background, you have serious difficulty getting to the top. Nothing is done to vet or prepare people for strategic thinking other than sending them to the service schools like the War College, which is a joke because no-one fails. You show up, you write papers, you pass. I personally had to tutor a number of people going through this. Their lack of basic military knowledge was appalling.

To move on to the examples I gave. Here are better ones (or ones better explained) since I have put more time into thinking about it, and it gets more to your point about "poisoning the well".
1. Russian General Sukhomlinov. Minister of War pre WW1 Russia. Prevents most improvements that could have been made to Russian military due to their experience in the Russo-Japanese war. He also oversaw the war plans. Put in place due to cronyism and kept their for the same reason. Finds and gets others like Samsonov, Rennenkampf and Jilinski appointed to their positions.
2. German General von Molke (the younger). His "botching" of the Schlieffen Plan has much more to do with hampering the Right Wing by putting Bulow instead of Kluck in charge, and then reinforcing the 5th Army to attempt a pincer, which was NOT part of the plan and did much more to weaken the right wing than the removal of the 2 corps to send to the East Front (which I agree was also a mistake). The plan was incredibly risky, and required a lot of guts, but given the disastrous French counter of their Plan XVII, it still could have worked. vonMoltke owed his position to his personal relationship (cronyism) with the Kaiser, who passed over competent people (Kluck, Falkenhayn) to put him in charge.
3. The collective French high commanders who came up with Plan XVII and the entire "Offensive au Otrance" philosophy of the French WW1 Army. Their suicidal plan, and then suicidal execution of this plan almost destroyed their army in the course of about 2 weeks. They only were able to recover from this due to EXTREME corrections by Joffre once he personally decided the plan had failed. Joffre also does a lot to fix their army by sacking more than half of the division and corps commanders for incompetence (they having reached their positions due to cronyism in the first place).
4. The British Generalship of WW1. Like our Hoo-ahh Airborne Rangers of today, you had to be in a "club" to get to the top of the British army. This club was the cavalry. Problem is that cavalry were completely obsolete in WW1, and the experience in the Boer War or the Indian Frontier were not things that applied to the Western Front. John French, then Haig were both at the top due to cronyism (Haig's wife was a lady in waiting to the Queen).
5. Conrad von Hotzendorff. Personally responsible for the disastrous plans that gutted the Austro-Hungarian Army at the start of WW1, and eventually lead to the demise of the 1000 year old empire.
6. Mclellins problem wasn't just that he overestimated the enemy. He couldn't "pull the trigger". He got promoted to his position due to his supposed success at Philipi at the start of the war. If anyone had looked into it, they would have discovered that Rosecrans was the one who got around to the enemy's rear and actually attacked, while Mclellin, to the front, did nothing, not even when it was obvious that Rosecrans was engaged. Mclellin did outflank the Southern armies in the peninsula in 1862, he just wouldn't attack. Gen Wool, an experience and capable general who was a senior commander in the brilliant 1847 campaign in Mexico, was present and was urging action, but he was ignored. Since he was in his 70s, he was viewed as too old, although he was still fit. If Wool had replaced Mclellin early in the Peninsula campaign, the war would have been over in 1862.

I mostly picked WW1 commanders as a consequence of my opinion that our next war will be similar to that. That is because WW1 was a shock due to rapid technological advances which were not understood (though they should have been). For us now, there has not been a force on force conflict with competent forces on both sides since the Arab Israeli War of 1973. Technology has obviously advanced a LOT since then, but no one knows for sure how it will influence the battlefield until it gets used in a major power vs major power conflict.

Every major conflict since the Civil War was supposed to "end quickly". The experience of world history is that they don't, and then they turn into giant attritional affairs that take years before one side is completely spent.

I don't expect to have changed your mind on any of this, but it is good to get both sides out there. No one is going to be able to "prove" anything until we actually experience what is coming. I just hope I have done a better job of explaining my position.

[Navigator]

Seems our military is operating on the assumption we're never going to fight another major conflict, certainly not one with a peer competitor like China. I expect all the woke nonsense is going to weaken us before they attack, even if we do jettison it once hostilities begin.

Another good example of an incompetent general would be Westmoreland, whose "body count" strategy for Vietnam was a disaster. Enlisted men fought over the same hill or meadow 3-4 times, which doesn't exactly help morale. Not that "clear and hold" would have guaranteed victory, but it would have had a better chance.

Blame Johnson for this. He was concentrating his efforts on his Great Society programs and didn't care much if US soldiers were dying to no purpose in Vietnam. I put 90% of the blame for Vietnam on the politicians since they set the goals and had the responsibility of ensuring the right people were in charge.

We haven't fought a major naval engagement since WWII, and I've read plenty of discussion about whether aircraft carriers are obsolete. They've been vulnerable since their inception, but had a long-range punch to compensate for it. I expect this isn't something we're going to have a definite answer to until something happens. Given China and Russia are both attempting to build carriers of their own, they clearly don't think them obsolete. The Falklands War is one of very examples we have and even it is 40 years out of date.

For action in the Pacific you either need very long range aircraft (read bombers) or carriers. The people constantly crying that carriers are obsolete ignore all the resources invested into protecting them.

Russia might get their one carrier back into operation in 2023 though it's mostly a prestige toy. China has two more under construction; India has their ridiculously over-priced, limited use Russian carrier, Vikramaditya (which is still better than Russia's) and another (Vikrant) starting sea trials this year. The UK has Prince of Wales doing sea trials. Japan is refitting its Izumo class DDHs to operate F-35Bs. South Korea is looking at building a light carrier operating F-35Bs. It wouldn't be impossible for Australia to convert its Canberra class LHDs to operate F-35Bs. Italy has two carriers with a new one (a replacement for Garibaldi) commissioning next year. Spain still has a STOVL carrier.

It seems a lot of countries are still building these "obsolete" ships.

One possibility I could think of, given most of the population is physically unfit for service, is recommended and later mandatory exercise programs once war breaks out. Assuming this WWIII occurs, I wouldn't expect nuclear weapons to be used until one side or the other feels pushed into a corner and sees no alternative but to use them.

That won't happen. There is a limited need for infantry that we're already satisfying.

The easiest way to cripple China's war machine is to blockade the Strait of Malacca. Most of their oil imports go through this narrow strait and if we send a fleet to stop traffic going through it, there's little they could do to stop us. This might change, but this is true for the present time. If they try to go around it, with oil tankers coming from the Middle East, it crosses Australian waters, who happens to be an ally. I find it unlikely Indonesia will join them, either.

China knows this which is one reason it's been investing in BRI projects in Pakistan and Burma. If war comes it would only be Chinese owned tankers that would attempt to sail to China. Pipelines would probably be easier to protect.

Adding a few more things, ran out of time earlier.

I agree with Trevor that Westmoreland was a disaster for the Army. He fought in WW2 and Korea, so he thought the same things would work in Vietnam (firepower overwhelms enemy). Johnson would have followed whatever advice Westmoreland gave. In fact, its why over 500K soldiers ended up there at the height of the war. The whole bodycount thing was misplaced thinking, again, that you win by attrition (WW2/Korea). Yes, I know people will say WW2 was not attrition, but it kinda was. We were able to get into Germany because they ran out of quality soldiers.

I also agree with Trevor that Aircraft carriers are obsolete. They would have been in the Falkands too if the Argentinians had a modern submarine. They are basically a handy airfield when you need one, but with air to air refueling, you can base your aircraft in the general area and be ok. Carriers are vulnerable both to submarines and to being overwhelmed by missiles. Yes they have escorts, but they too can be overwhelmed by missile swarms. Missiles with multiple targeting (infrared/active radar/passive radar) flying in at Mach 2+. Hypersonic are even deadlier (almost no time for anti-missile missiles to react).

Of course this debate will only end when it comes to a US vs China war. And I bet the Chinese have a warstart strategy that involves taking out carriers before their defenses are primed and ready.

Carriers equipped with F-35s would be the bad guys dream, as this plane is an out and out disaster. Any research online will show that. But again, for absolute proof, we have to wait and see a real combat test. Anyone building a carrier right now is making a giant budgetary mistake. Much better to put the money into modern submarines.

Next topic: We will need millions of infantry replacements once a real war starts. This has been the case in every major power vs major power war. We will have to take all of the people that cannot enlist right now. It will take at least an extra month or two to get them into shape. The Army will take the drastic measures it needs to to get people into shape. This will have to include almost starving those overweight and running them through a longer bootcamp that is much more strenuous than the current program. They know how to do this.

Last topic: China imports a lot more than oil. Most important to them is going to be food. In the end this is how I predict we win. The Chinese will starve their population in the prosecution of the war.

[DaKardii]

How did I miss this way back then?

Apparently, Facebook has for several years been taking direct orders from the US government on who and who not to censor. A Facebook spokesman admitted this to the New York Times back in December of 2017.

Until now, I didn't realize it was this bad.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/worl ... ebook.html