How the United States Lost the Naval War of 2015
fpri.org
fpri.org
Haven't we heard this story before?
And here I was hoping for an interesting analysis of the Iran wargames and the dismal results for the carrier groups, but all I got was let's build a bigger bluewater fleet.
You know the author of this story was hot and bothered during the entire writing process. A Christian, no doubt, too. Probably skipped Bible study when they covered the section that says "Those who delight in violence [God] abhors".
¹ http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spendi...
The US spending 40-50% of the world's defense budget doesn't say much other than the fact that a lot of people are getting very rich in America. Don't get me wrong, they are still far ahead from everyone else, but I don't think that's a valid metric unless you adjust for purchasing power.
The EU as a whole spends about half what the US does on defence and ends up with about 10% of the capability. Hmm.
(E.g. during the Second World War a lot of new technology came out of the military, too. But that was only to expect, since all resources went into the military.)
And another from the War Nerd: http://exiledonline.com/the-war-nerd-this-is-how-the-carrier...
He repeats this quote from the US Naval Institute about 10 times in that last article: "Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack," and points out that ballistic missiles are 50 year old tech.
The solution to defending a surface navy isn't to throw money at it, but to mothball it.
1. China torpedoes a US aircraft carrier for no particularly good reason
2. China claims that the US aircraft carrier exploded all on its own, and nobody can prove otherwise
3. The US doesn't bother to retaliate
4. The US has thus "lost the Naval War of 2015".
Does this scenario strike anyone as especially plausible?
ELINT is very powerful, and the US intelligence agencies have been at this game since before WWII. Their sneakiness boggles the mind! They were using signals bounced off of the moon to spy on Soviet equipment, and disguised the whole thing as radio astronomy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFSPHfZQpIQ
If you are going to go up against the US defense establishment, you'd better be damned sure you know what you're doing.
If I were the US, facing such an asymmetric threat, I'd keep most of my carrier groups around for the short term as a boondoggle, then come up with my own novel threat against my opponent's shipping.
(Sub launched cruise missiles, or mines? The advanced 21st century version, of course.)
Nukes.
If I were the US, I'd simply make it an official matter of policy that any attack from a nuclear power would result in an immediate nuclear response, the logic being that once two nuclear powers are at war it's probably going to turn nuclear eventually, so you might as well make the first strike.
Some of us spent our entire youth afraid of nuclear annihilation 24/7. We've been out of that for some time now, but I don't think anyone wants to send the world back to that point.
Yes, certainly we need to maintain defensive and offensive military capabilities, but I think we should be doing much, much more to reduce the need for those capabilities.
There will never be a hot war between US and China for so long as nuclear weapons have no effective defense. Nuclear weapons are probably the single biggest enabler of peace on the planet.
I beg to differ. First, see India v. Pakistan as a direct counter to your "impossible" statement.
Second, as the example shows, the line you draw regarding using nukes does not extend all the way down to the rifleman. It's entirely possible to start a conventional and/or localized war with the understanding that you intend to win and therefore do not have the need to use your nukes.
You're making the major mistake though of assuming your enemy is a rational actor, a la the cold war. Russia is a rational actor. So is China. Even India.
In Pakistan however, only a minority are rational actors. Should a change in government occur that is pro-Taliban, you now have a nation of irrational actors with nuclear weapons.
MAD falls apart at this point. The fear of death means little to the Muslim extremist, and a man that isn't scared does highly irrational things, like nuke a civilian target.
All it takes is one, and then all bets are off.
No. The scenario is that China hits a US carrier with a (conventionally armed) ballistic missile, for no particularly good reason
The NIMITZ-class self-defense measures include: missiles, guns, and electronic warfare. The NATO Sea Sparrow Missile System is comprised of two launchers with eight missiles each. Sea Sparrow is a radar-guided, short-to-medium range missile capable of engaging aircraft and cruise missiles. NIMITZ-class also has Close-In Weapon System mounts for short range defense against aircraft or missiles. Each mount has its own search and track radar, and a six-barrel, 20-millimeter Gatling gun capable of firing 3,000 rounds per minute
The incident—could it really be called a ‘‘war’’?—
Well, when you're making up some hypothetical event in the future, you can call it anything you want. Kind of weird to question it yourself though.
This whole thing is pretty stupid, though. As a former Navy guy, I find it pretty hard to believe that the US wouldn't be able to prove that China was responsible, or that they wouldn't retaliate even if they couldn't prove it.
It's a known thought that since the late 80s, the Chinese Navy has been led by strategists who follow Mahanian decisive battle theory. It'll be interesting to see how carrier air groups are integrated into a theory that was adopted in the turn of the 20th century for a 'big gun'/dreadnought/battleship navy that was made obsolete by the emergence of naval air power.
Billy Mitchell just keeps winning...
Anyway, the fraction of the budget is really besides the point. We spend an inordinate amount of money on the military, and there is no viable threats to defend against. China is the best pick because they spend the second most money ($85 billion), but can we legitimately think that we'll go to physical war with such a huge trade partner?
Our military is funded by campfire stories and yellow press.