Pentagon war game includes scenario for military response to domestic rebellion | Hacker News Reader

Pentagon war game includes scenario for military response to domestic rebellion

theintercept.com

16 pointscarterklein1331 comments

Pentagon has plan for X, for values of X that are possible, is literally the job.

Do we want a military with extremely powerful weapons executing a carefully considered and studied plan, or just winging it?

And truth be told, joint / cooperative exercises are often more about C2 experience and relationship building and less about the actual objective. "Aliens attack" would be almost as effective at the primary goals. So why not have some fun with it?

The Intercept does veer into click-bait occasionally.

> Pentagon has plan for X, for values of X that are possible, is literally the job.

To wit: "War Plan Red" is an US old war plan, developed in the 20s and 30s, for a war with Britain/Canada, fought entirely in Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red). Similarly, "Defence Scheme No. 1" was Canada's plan for a surprise invasion of the US (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defence_Scheme_No._1).

"War Plan White", from the same series, dealt with a domestic uprising (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_color-coded_war_...).

The fact that they are doing their job is not interesting or relevant. What's interesting and important is the specific scenario they are forced to consider, and what it says about the state of the country.

The reasons behind this type of planning are interesting, but I wouldn't read too much into them. I've sat in on this type of wargaming before, and generally the workflow is as follows:

Military think-tank identifies a situation for which where there is no modern war plan, a situation which could possibly happen if global circumstances change.

Think-tank writes up a detailed notional scenario describing the world in which that situation could occur and hands it off to military leaders.

Military leaders present it as a war game to their staff, assign different units to different sides.

Military staff proceeds to generate plans to win their side of the 'war', possibly executing maneuvers in mock battles or training events, and write up lessons learned and battle tactics and strategies.

These write ups are compiled into "war plans" and codified.

To clarify, these are done constantly. A large portion of the training events that the average military service member does are in support of these wargames. They are extremely effective in keeping up mission readiness at all levels; commanders get practice solving difficult military problems in peacetime, battalions get practice coordinating deployments and operations, and individual units and personnel get practice using tactics and equipment. The only real downside is that they are vastly expensive.

They are less expensive than losing the occasional war.

True! But when was last time the US was forced into a war? I believe that was World War 2. Ever since then we have been voluntarily policing the world, and losing many of those "wars".

His point is that plans like this are generated regardless of the current state of the country, therefore it says nothing about how polarised or at risk of rebellion America is today.

(a) they had a scenario for response to domestic boomer rebellion, and it probably wasn't new then

(b) for current purposes, JCS has sided with the people

> (b) for current purposes, JCS has sided with the people

What do you mean? The closest "current purposes" have come to rebellion is looting and rioting, and there's no indication that anyone in the military has approved of that. Hell, many _protesters_ don't agree with it.

sorry, I was referring to coup-watching the US. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23412986

I'm seeing military and a majority of the media as not being with the White House on "dominating the battlespace". Am I missing other power centers? (I think the Fed would prefer to see some emphasis on addressing the pandemic)

Ah thanks for clarifying

You're welcome. See also Todd Winn:

https://www.military.com/benefits/military-legal/court-marti...

> In early 2025, a cadre of these disaffected Zoomers launch a protest movement. Beginning in “parks, rallies, protests, and coffee shops” — first in Seattle; then New York City; Washington, D.C.; Los Angeles; Las Vegas; and Austin — a group known as Zbellion begins a “global cyber campaign to expose injustice and corruption and to support causes it deem[s] beneficial.”

These are the bad guys???

On another note, their profile of zoomers is pretty interesting. Perhaps it might just be the spots I hang out on the internet, but most of us do seem to radicalize easier, or at least fall further to whatever respective side of the economic spectrum.

> campaign to expose injustice and corruption ... These are the bad guys???

Propaganda 101: Call yourself the warmest, fuzziest name you can think of, something nobody could ever possibly disagree with.

Actions can be just or unjust regardless of how shrewdly they are portrayed. Logically then, you think the parent post's opinion is biased by propaganda?

Seriously... Not referring to the parent comment specifically, but when did people start _openly_ making the argument that naming yourself something magically confers all the benefits of the label? Presumably the overlap of National Socialists with "people in support of their nation implementing socialism" isn't very high.

They pay people to come up with scenarios. They range from mundane to far out there. If they didn't make up stuff like this they wouldn't be doing their jobs properly. I'm sure the NCOs had a blast making the PowerPoint for this one.

What strikes me about their scenario is how it assumes there is a core group making malware to rob the corporations.

While that would make an interesting episode of CSI: Who Cares, it doesn't square with the flash rebellions we've seen since the Arab Spring.

The nature of rebellions in our time are sudden, decentralized, massive protest movements with no clear leaders and no clear goals.

Much harder to counter one of these protest waves than troll the darknet for anarcho-hipster corporate raiders.

The "no clear goals" part makes it really hard to satisfy the rebels to the point that they stop the rebellion, too.

The Pentagon is expected to plan for every eventuality. If they don't, they'll be blamed for not being prepared. The US had plans to invade British domains, such as Canada, between the two world wars (in which they were both allies)

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

>Both the September 11 terrorist attacks and the Great Recession greatly influenced the attitudes of this generation in the United states, and resulted in a feeling of unsettlement and insecurity among Gen Z.

I'd be surprised if zoomers cared at all about 9/11, since they would've been too young to remember or process it.

Yes but not too young to be affected by the subsequent laws and wars.

Some of these kids have only known our country in a state of endless war.

Yeah I have a younger sister who is Gen Z and I'd say it's more to your point. All she knows is the rhetoric that the United States has its back against the wall and, like a caged animal, is scared and frightened and trying to bite the folks trying to help it.

I think the notion of American Exceptionalism died with Gen Z, in my opinion, so much so that it can't even be taught in schools. Granted, I'm probably speaking from a point of privilege as my family is from a very urban and developed part of the country which is traditionally more worldly and not so US-centric (NYC). But, I clearly remember what I was taught in middle/high school as a younger millenial, and what my sister is being taught now is totally different in terms of ideology.

Am I supposed to be shocked, surprised, or enraged by this? It seems fully expected (and desirable) for the military to plan and practice for this.

I feel like D: interested. Now that I read it, I came to realize that of course the military is preparing for this and a zillion other scenarios as well - I just found this one particularly interesting because I never would have thought about something like this myself.

Germany now has 20 million retirees that just got a raise of 3.5%-4.5% in their pensions . Already 1/4 of the population expects to be paid by a dwindling and ageing workforce. Before long 1 adult will have to pay for 4 retirees (in Denmark). This isn't a problem that will lead to military conflict necessarily, but (almost) for sure to a collapse of social safety nets by mid century.

Consider Clausewitz / On War. Planning and executing an engagement is tactics, coordinating engagements to further the objective of the war is strategy. In modern military thought, a domestic rebellion would be one of a series of engagements in a war. Why was this war game executed / considered in such a stripped down context?

Clausewitz / On War: 1832. All military thought until today can not be read without first reading Clausewitz to understand to what the author is responding. It's like LISP, but for the military, and in an alternate reality where if every single PFC knew LISP.

If a majority of people are rebelling, then the pentagon's scenario should be how to help that majority reassert control over a runaway executive branch.

No harm in having a scenario where a minority of people commit a domestic rebellion.

> Execute order 66.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com