Classified US military war game set to take place | Hacker News Reader

Classified US military war game set to take place

msn.com

20 pointsgrawprog46 comments

What a terribly written article by someone that heard some words and didn’t understand them, but cranked out an article anyway. Any war “game” conducted at scale will be a named exercise. Anything without a name is just routine training. If the reporter can’t even find that out, then the statement “military about to do classified thing in the near future” is worthless. And even when parts of an exercise are classified, usually the name is unclassified. Exercises with classified names tend to be smaller, narrow in scope, and honestly boring (large force engagements where people travel from all over to participate are way more fun). But yes, the military is about to do a large number of things in the near future, and the president is interested in several of them. That’s normal ops. The exercise is focused on countering Russia or China? Yeah, most of them are.

I can’t say the reporter is wrong, just that this article provides no useful information and is a waste of bandwidth and storage on a server somewhere.

Military propaganda is just the worst. This article is about how we're using our built up forces to conduct training exercises, demonstrating our military power to the world.

This article then criticizes how Russia has "built up a forces, large scale exercises and acts of intimidation, in the Baltic and Black Sea."

Similarly, it criticizes Russia for involving itself in Eastern Europe, and acts like the logical step is for NATO to takeover the region. After all, US hegemony is just and noble, why should anyone object to it?

I've been confused for quite some time over what appears to be official US policy that Vietnam should worry more about what the US thinks than it does about what China thinks. There is no model of the world in which this idea makes any sense at all. And yet, it was pretty much the only justification given for the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Vietnam isn’t some innocent pawn... it may be in the strati interests of Vietnam to not be in line with China.

Sure. That's a completely separate issue.

Vietnam can have its own opinion on anything. But it will never, under any circumstances, consider America's opinion to be more important than China's. Trying to bring that situation about is no better than pouring money into a hole. Thinking you can do this means you're very, very bad at your job.

Someone is 'bad at their job' for not understanding the geopolitical inclinations of Vietnam?

These statements about Vietnam are out of context entirely.

We should be 'confused' that one would think 'the US should care more about the US than China' ... because that statement doesn't make any sense.

Vietnam 'cares' about other nations to the extent they have power, and that it affects them.

Nations in China's vicinity are very concerned about China's new Imperial ambitions, and it's been that way for centuries.

America et. al. are concerned about China's influence in neighbouring states.

The TPP is designed to provide economic synergy between those directly in the vicinity of China with the US + Canada + Australia so as to provide an economic basis and some degree of influence outside the direct purview of China.

In an interconnected world, small states are all in the orbit if larger states, it's as unavoidable as gravity.

Vietnam specifically is relatively small and weak, in order to gain leverage, they have to work with others with similar concerns i.e. Singapore, S. Korea, and having the US + Canada as a participant is a major bonus.

Vietnam was absolutely a willing and supportive proponent of the TPP for those reasons.

The 'deal killer' was not any Asian country, it was Trump, who foolishly thought it would be more advantageous for the US to deal with APAC States individually thereby gaining no leverage. While this would be true for individual trade concerns, it's completely short sighted vis-a-vis the bigger picture.

Someone is bad at their job for thinking they can produce a world in which America's opinion counts for more in Vietnam than China's does. This is the third time I'm repeating the same thing. I don't think it's really that difficult or complex of a concept.

That's not strictly true, if you are saying that China matters more to Vietnam simply because it's in the same hemisphere.

Would it be possible for a state department to aim for a world in which Israel cares more about America's opinion than the other regional powers, such as Iran or Saudi Arabia?

Can you really not think of any other examples where a smaller country might not think, "the adversary of my adversary is my friend"?

It worked with French Indochina, and it arguably still works with South Korea. All it takes is years of military occupation.

If it's slipping in Taiwan, it's not going to last in South Korea either.

Taiwan has never considered the US more important than China because it considers itself China.

I don't really get what you are saying here though. I don't buy that US control over Taiwan is slipping, but even claiming that suggests your original point about Vietnam is wrong.

> Taiwan has never considered the US more important than China because it claims it is China.

This is just equivocating. I can use "Taiwan" and "China" to refer to different states regardless of whether Taiwan sometimes uses analogous terms to refer to the same thing. Not only do I know what I mean, I know that you know what I mean.

And yes, Taiwan is moving in the direction of closer ties to China.

>Not only do I know what I mean, I know that you know what I mean.

Yes, which is why I also addressed your post without making use of that.

>And yes, Taiwan is moving in the direction of closer ties to China.

The US is currently increasing it's military budget to "prevent Chinese invasion of Taiwan" so I don't really agree with that. Even disagreeing there means they cared more about the US than China for the past sixty years.

> Even disagreeing there means they cared more about the US than China for the past sixty years.

Yeah, I don't dispute that. I would say they care more now, too. But they're shifting. And Taiwan is the absolute best case for a regional power looking somewhere other than China.

I don't understand how you can say both that and

>Vietnam can have its own opinion on anything. But it will never, under any circumstances, consider America's opinion to be more important than China's.

OK, fair enough. If Vietnam and China were in a hot war, and Vietnam sought and received American help, Vietnam would likely give more weight to America than to China. I don't think this is likely enough to bother considering, but it's technically possible.

Cessation of active hostilities would see attitudes swinging back the other way, even against a background of passive hostilities, as we see in Taiwan.

It's the other way around: the TPP was supposed to exist precisely because China was 'on the top of the mind' of the Vietnamese, and others.

You are aware that countries like Poland and Romania are begging the US to station as many troops as possible on their soil, and do all kinds of back flips for this, right?

> The Polish government is asking the U.S. to open a military base in Poland as a counter balance to Russia. They've offered the U.S. up to $2 billion, as well as a promise to call it "Fort Trump."

https://www.npr.org/2018/11/22/670228558/poland-requests-u-s...

This brings to mind Geir Lundestad’s phrase “empire by invitation,” describing America’s burgeoning role in western Europe in the early years of the Cold War at the behest of these governments (and largely supported by public opinion in these countries, as well).

And Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria...

But, but, but, USA bad, man.

That sounds like the wish of the Polish military, less so the Polish people.

You don't understand the history of Poland, it's role in world war II or it's role in the cold war. Poland's people are strongly pro nato acting as a stopguard.

In Romania's case I would like to understand more.

I am quite aware of Polish history over the past five hundred years. That doesn't mean they want to hand sovereignty to NATO.

Au contraire, they entered NATO to ensure they remain sovereign.

Romanians hate Russia as much as poles do, due to recent history.

The most damaging thing you can say about a politician in Romania is that he is pro-Russia.

Ask the Ukrainians about the neighborly ways of the Russians.

You mean the ones that held access to a Russian Navy base and threatened to hand it over to NATO? It was wrong for the Russians to invade, but it would not have happened without NATO provocation.

Even if the events are exactly as you describe, that is not "NATO provocation". That's Ukrainian provocation, using NATO as a threat. But you seem to want to paint NATO as bad regardless of actual facts...

NATO has spent decades expanding in Eastern Europe, which is the provocation I mentioned. This is easily fact checked.

1. NATO expanded by various countries voluntarily asking to join. It's not like NATO conquered a bunch of countries, or even threatened them. The countries joined because they felt threatened, all right, but not threatened by NATO.

2. NATO is a defensive alliance. A defensive alliance is only a "provocation" if one regards the ability to invade other countries as an inalienable right.

Oh, and look, we got here by way of talking about Ukraine. Who was the invader there? Not NATO.

Given what happened to the Ukraine (and Georgia), are you going to heap blame on NATO? Blame belongs on the ones who actually invaded.

We're not going to agree on the "choices" that led to expansion, so I won't try to change your mind.

Imagine another country in the Americas willingly became a defensive ally of Russia, allowing them to place arms and troops there. Do you think the US would consider that a provocation and be willing to invade that country?

We've done that before, and we've even overthrown governments we thought might make that decision. So when the US does the exact same thing, it's still a provocation. Any "Russia is more of a threat" or "spreading democracy" justifications are simple American exceptionalism.

>Blame belongs on the ones who actually invaded.

I did blame Russia, that doesn't mean NATO isn't also to blame.

Fair points.

> involving itself in Eastern Europe

You mean invading Ukraine?

No, I doubt that's the only action the article is referring to.

The death camps opened up again. They're called fentanyl. This time they figured out a way to charge admission. How about reparations for that? More people enslaved today due to ignorant foreign unchecked ambition than anytime in history, and in far worse conditions. The past has its brutality. You're worst, for far less, and you do it because you like it.

No, the world doesn't need a autocrat. Too much knowledge for one single authority. The world needs you to learn how to live your life without bothering other people. Try it please. It's really easy to do.

Note that wargames are intended to be lost, to reveal unacknowledged weaknesses. If most of the wargames you play end up with you the winner, you're doing them wrong.

What's the story here?

The US does hundreds of these every year.

This was probably an article written on the basis of a press release by the US forces, which probably accompanies all major exercises.

Undoubtedly, it's a 'public signal' (one of many) by US forces to the world.

So the trick here is to 'read the tea leaves' and see if there is any hint of change of policy or anything special, or just a re-affirmation of things we already knew.

They mentioned the 'concern of nuclear weapons' and 'China's ambitions towards Taiwan'.

Those statements are basically meant for everyone, esp. Russia and China, and the public at large: the US military is officially concerned about those things. It's not like anyone didn't know before, but this makes it more consistent and official. Which is altogether different than the armchair discussions by a lot of observers and analysts.

>War games are always sensitive and outcomes are closely guarded because they can reveal shortfalls in US military plans and operations.

So all war games are typically classified. I don’t understand what makes this special or why this justifies an article?

It is to garner or maintain public support for military spending

Interesting amount of 5D psyops to be had here.

Doubtful they would announce that in recent trials they were faced with repeat failure if they truly were.

Somebody bring me more tinfoil

I wonder how effective these actually are. I figure since the US is on constant war somewhere giving troops real experience, it would be more effective than games.

If their procedure is still to rig the enemies moves to guarantee a decisive US victory, probably not very effective

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002

This is not the procedure. There’s numerous types of war games. Some are meant to show leaders how to use new technology. Some are meant to actually stress the force to its breaking point, and then review the exercise to find ways to improve. Still others are meant to display potential force projection for future conflicts.

I wonder how Skylink will play a role in 10 years...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com