Hacker News Reader

Comment by labrador | Hacker News Reader

Former sub-sailor here: An important point is made:

For the Navy, a Horizon 3 conversation would not be about better carriers and aircraft. Instead it would focus on the core reasons the Navy deploys a carrier strike group: to show the flag for deterrence, or to control part of the sea to protect shipping, or to protect a Marine amphibious force, or to project offensive power against any adversary in well-defended areas.

Carriers are vulnerable and probably cannot be protected enough to survive an all out war. Too often the conversation gets side-tracked by this debate. However, carriers are very useful outside of war for projecting power and influence around the globe, so they are still very useful.

View on HN

At what point did the appearance of military power diverge from actual military effectiveness? Guerilla warfare in the 18th century?

It seems like the modern militaries are probably already well aware of these two separate things, to the point where there are probably two different conversations about Horizon 1/2/3, one for projecting the appearance of power for diplomatic leverage, and the other for wartime efficacy.

Projecting power isn't just about appearance, it's about being able to use your military even in small conflicts to enforce your policy.

The biggest problem in recent decades seems to be the reticence to actually pull the gloves off and really fight a war. War is one of those things you have to actually do, and not dick around with, to be successful. All that artificial "Rules of Engagement" provide is a framework for the enemy to hide behind.

> The biggest problem in recent decades seems to be the reticence to actually pull the gloves off and really fight a war.

I guess that's probably true if your objective is to wage war and kill.

If your objective is to prevent or minimize those things than it's probably not your biggest problem at all and is actually your biggest accomplishment.

If you aren't willing to actually fight a war, then maybe you shouldn't fuck around and waste people's lives on a half-hearted adventure.

So you're arguing that we should kill more people to save people?

That is not in any way what I'm proposing.

I'm saying that if you're going to fight a war in Vietnam, you should land the Marines at Haiphong and capture Hanoi, rather than idle away ten years and tens of thousands of American lives on a failed adventure, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians that died along the way.

If you're going to topple the government of a middle eastern country, you need to actually stick out the occupation and build a structure that will stand on it's own, rather than descending into anarchy when you pull out. If you're not willing to invest in that, then perhaps you shouldn't invest in the initial "Shock and Awe" portion of the campaign.

Moreover, 3000 years of history should be enough to convince anyone that invading Afghanistan is a terrible idea, maybe one step down from "launch an invasion of Russia in late summer."

US rules of engagement were partially to prevent Chinese intervention in the Vietnam War. The Chinese already had 100,000 advisors in the country in an anti-aircraft role and a full scale invasion of Hanoi by US Marines would have almost certainly resulted in a response by the PLA.

Even though the Chinese troops were poorly armed and poorly trained relative to US troops they had undergone some degree of moderization since the Korean War where they had fought the UN to a standstill. Given the logistical advantages of the Chinese to mass men and material (it was on their border vs half the world away) it isn't obvious the US would have prevailed in a escalated conflict. China was also a nuclear power by 1965 which was not true during the Korean War.

But I don't think any of this disagrees with the main point of your comment which is don't intervene where the rules of engagement prevent you from winning.

Wasn't that the whole takeaway of vietnam? - killing people != winning the war

What does the "really fight a war" phrase mean to you?

Both Gulf wars saw thorough and decisive military victories by US and Coalition forces. That wasn't the problem.

Are you referring to something like WW2, where the entire population is mobilized in the production of material for the war? Do you mean "total war"?

Or is it about projecting _the idea_ that your military is able to be effective even in the smallest of scenarios?

No, no, projecting military power and "force projection" is very much a thing and isn't just about duping people into thinking you have a strong military:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_projection

You just have your terminology wrong.

Carriers don't just appear powerful, they are. But their weaknesses are more pronounced in pitched conflict & wartime.

No surface vessel is defensible against modern anti ship missiles deployed in bulk. The Falklands War demonstrated this.

Carriers have already proven themselves as valuable assets over half a century of relative peace. This is what they are to me: peace time projection platforms.

I would almost tend to extend that to say that no large-scale modern terrestrial base/war machine can really stand up to modern, anti-whatever missiles.

There's this idea where there are two sides in war scenarios, offense and defense, attackers and defenders, like sports or whatever. It seems to me more like modern war wouldn't be two sides playing offense and defense, it would be two parties dishing out incomprehensible destruction and one-upping each other hoping that the other gives up first.

> Carriers are vulnerable and probably cannot be protected enough to survive an all out war

Carriers don't travel by themselves, and are heavily defended by anti-missile/plane/sub/etc installations and supporting vessels.

They may not last an entire war, but they will probably last as long as needed to tip the scale. It's more likely the carrier's aircraft will be lost before the carrier.

"In a 1982 congressional hearing, legislators asked [US Admiral Hyman Rickover] how long American carriers would survive in an actual war." his response? “Forty-eight hours”.

https://warisboring.com/the-u-s-navy-s-big-mistake-building-...

Adm Rickover was known mostly for two things besides putting an atomic reactor in a submarine in the 1950's: Being consistently right and being blunt about it.

I mean, Rickover was a through and through submarine guy though. This statement might be true, but he was hardly objective and without agenda when it came to surface naval warfare.

I'd wager the first 48 hours of a modern all-out war with another major nation will be the deciding factor, or heavily tip the scales.

A modern war with another major nation likely won't last months or years like traditional wars. There's too much destructive firepower available to major nations for that to be realistic.

It's more likely that it will be destructive, brutal, and very swift.

Not to mention Rickover said that nearly 40 years ago - our modern carrier groups have a lot more firepower and technology at their disposal - including new generation stealthy ships.

Still seems like such a huge attack surface compared to a dude sitting at a terminal in an NSA office or a drone pilot in Nevada or a cruise missile platform tucked away in a mountain somewhere.

Aren't we past the point where giant war machines have much effectiveness when it comes to actual global war between 1st world nation-states?

Carrier groups aren't just about giant war machines. They carry many troops and their transportation (smaller war machines, like helicopters and boats).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com