We only ever talk about the third attack on Pearl Harbor
butwhatfor.com
butwhatfor.com
It's also interesting to consider if the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor would have happened if it weren't for our own dress rehearsals we carried out in front of the Japanese. Maybe war games are a bad idea when they're too big to keep secret and you're too politicized to integrate the lessons. Admiral Yamamoto didn't have to worry about upsetting US Navy top brass. He was able to benefit from our lessons, even if we weren't.
Don't know whether such a wargaming episode happened in reality.
Not entirely unsurprising that upon entering the jet age the USN demanded their own expensive but less flammable brew JP-5 instead of "standard" jet fuel (which itself is much less dangerous than the aviation gasoline that was the cause of many WWII carriers burning).
This video series from the Japanese perspective is pretty good and shows all the luck involved:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo&list=PLLeOB_bZlk...
The two attacks were (1) attacking the ground installations on Midway island and (2) defending against the US aircraft carriers.
For (1), the main goal of the whole operation was to take Midway island, but early in that operation the goal was to destroy the ability of US planes on Midway to attack the Japanese ships. The Japanese kept worrying about attacks on their ships from US planes on Midway.
For (2) the Japanese had tried to determine where the US carriers were but the effort failed, and, net, the Japanese didn't know where the US carriers were. The Japanese considered the possibility that the US carriers really were about ready to find and attack the Japanese ships.
Then, net, handling both (1) and (2) was too much and led to (A) having the Japanese airplanes busy with (1) and unable to respond to (2) and (B) giving too little attention to (2) until too late. In particular, the Japanese had to wait, wait too long, wait on their airplanes returning from their attack on Midway and have their decks full of those returning airplanes. Also they had to wait, wait too long, wait to rearm their planes with torpedoes for attacking US ships instead of bombs for attacking Midway ground targets.
Basically, either (1) for the island or (2) for the US ships was a long term effort, from getting ready, launching the planes, managing their fighter cover for their ships, recovering the planes, getting the planes below decks, refueled, rearmed, and ready for launching again. The Japanese were able to do well at all that for either (1) or (2) but not for both in the time available. The Japanese underestimated the challenge and threat of trying to do both at essentially the same time.
The Japanese had absolutely no chance to win the war.
Update: It looks like there are such things, called “amphibious assault ships”. Apparently there are 7 of this type https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wasp-class_amphibious_assaul... and 2 of a more recent type https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/America-class_amphibious_ass.... It seems they’re about the same length and overall size as a WW2 carrier.
So that’s interesting. So there are 11 large nuclear powered carriers and 9 of these smaller type. That’s already kind of a lot.
There was the idea of the "Sea Control" ship in the 70s that would have built on this idea: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Control_Ship
For small-scale conflicts however, it's somewhat paradoxical that a large carrier is what you need. Putting airpower over land from a carrier requires throwing a lot of weight into the air to put an aircraft with both an effective warload and a useful loiter time. This is coupled with a large sortie rate, as the time it takes to get a warplane on station is long and needs to be replaced often. That adds up to a lot of launches.
All of that is to say then that you need a larger carrier, ideally with a catapult and the powerplant to fire it often. Skijumps and STOVL don't get you that kind of range except to the beach.
So for any kind of land strike mission, you really need a big fleet carrier. But for sea operations, smaller carriers are looking more feasable, so the idea is coming around again. The America class as you mentioned is likely going down this path, and Japan's Izumo-class is likely going to go down this route as well.
I don’t think they counted on a few early problematic outcomes, and the US will to enter a fight over the loss of a few soldiers at Pearl Harbor.
The entire war, the Japanese were still waiting for the big decisive battle, no matter if they were winning or losing the various engagements, but they never got the big battle they wanted. Eventually, they did try to force it at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, although that attempt did not turn out well for them.
And there are many others, depending on how decisive you mean.
The battle of Sedan in the Franco-prussian war resulted in the loss of most of the French army, their emperor and government. A siege and a few more battles had to be fought before France surrendered, but it was a foregone conclusion.
The battles of Tannenberg and Masurian lakes in WWI were decisive and stopped Russia for up to years, and they never recovered in the north, their only successes coming against the Austria-Hungarians.
In WWII, the Bagration and Manchurian strategic operations were pretty decisive on land. Midway was on water. The invasions of the low countries and France, Denmark and Norway, Yugoslavia and Greece, (present day) Malaysia and Indonesia were decisive and swift as well ( even if they indeed resulted in a war of attrition ultimately lost to allies of the decisively defeated countries in question).
But they did. France, the low countries, Denmark, Norway all surrendered following said battles. The fight was kept on by allies of theirs, but the battles themselves were decisive with regards to the fate of the country that lost.
France fought on, the Free French forces were active on each front. Including the Eastern Front. Norway formed a government in exile, and continued the fight. Including the sabotage of the Nazis heavy water production. So no, these countries didn't surrender, as defeated countries did in the Napoleonic Wars.
> In the first six to twelve months of a war with the United States and Great Britain I will run wild and win victory upon victory. But then, if the war continues after that, I have no expectation of success.
If you play "what if" and imagine the Japanese had won Midway, and the US had no carriers at all, that gives the Japanese total control of the Pacific. The Japanese can take Hawaii if they want to, because how could the US possibly reinforce and resupply it? The Japanese can attack shipyards and ports on the West Coast at their leisure - and those would be defended obviously, but the attacks would greatly slow the progress of shipbuilding.
Fortunately for the US, they have other ports in the Atlantic. So okay, the US builds carriers there. Now the problem is, you can't just build one carrier and send it to the Pacific. If you have just the one carrier, the Japanese will be very eager to sink it. They'll have spies and recon subs so they'll know when it sorties. If you try to take it through the Panama Canal they'll ambush it.
The bottom line is, you have to build several carriers before you even think about challenging the Japanese again. That means you're looking at years - YEARS - during which, the Japanese do whatever they like. And when you finally put a carrier task force together, at best it's a fair fight ...you might lose again.
And don't forget, while all this is going on you're also fighting Germany.
I'm claiming that if one side has a carrier and the other side doesn't, that will determine who can reliably move convoys across the pacific.
The carriers have such an enormous capacity for reconnaissance, it's hard for me to imagine a convoy sneaking past them. So if Japan has a carrier dedicated to the blockade of Hawaii, it seems to me that Hawaii is effectively cut off.
By contrast, the US would attempt to interdict Japanese supply convoys by using the only tool they'd have left: submarines. Better than nothing, to be sure. But it's much more difficult for a sub to find a convoy, than it is for multiple airplanes.
You're proposing using capital ships--ships of which even the largest numbers had single digit numbers--to escort convoys. This takes them out of the action for any other offensive or defensive naval operation you might want to use. Instead, you'd use destroyers (of which you have hundreds) and cruisers (merely dozens). This also lets you have several escort vessels per convoy, which is superior because two ships can be in two places at once which a single ship cannot.
> By contrast, the US would attempt to interdict Japanese supply convoys by using the only tool they'd have left: submarines. Better than nothing, to be sure. But it's much more difficult for a sub to find a convoy, than it is for multiple airplanes.
... Merchant and convoy raiding by WW2 existed almost exclusively of submarines attacking convoys. The Germans did attempt using surface ships to raid convoys, but their record was absolutely abysmal, and it's pretty universally agreed among naval historians that not building those ships would have been better for Germany.
Now, in 1942, the US submarine fleet was greatly hampered by the fact that the Mark 14 torpedo was a piece of shit that didn't work, and the Bureau of Ordinance refused to countenance those claims. However, the US was historically targeting Japanese shipping with submarines the entire time, and once the Mark 14 torpedo was finally fixed, the US submarine fleet would go on to be the most successful of WW2, having sunk virtually the entire Japanese shipping fleet.
There's even more considerations that I'm not including here, but hopefully this should be enough to convince you that figuring fleet carrier numbers are not going to determine the victor of a battle for merchant shipping.
The Allies (mostly the US) built lots of escort carriers, precisely for escorting convoys (be it "normal" convoys or invasion fleets in the Pacific), and AFAIK they were considered pretty successful and took some of the glory of winning the battle of the Atlantic. But yeah, you can, with some justification, argue that escort carriers aren't capital ships.
> The Germans did attempt using surface ships to raid convoys, but their record was absolutely abysmal
IIRC the German auxiliary cruisers (HilfsKreuzer) were considered pretty successful, as they were cheap and since they were just converted merchant ships with guns etc. hidden they could often get quite close to a target before revealing themselves. But these were used for picking off lone merchantmen, not convoys.
> it's pretty universally agreed among naval historians that not building those ships would have been better for Germany.
Yes, the German capital ships were an almost complete waste of resources. Those resources would have been much better spent on, say, u-boats and land-based aircraft. I guess the only positive return Germany got from them was as a sort of 'fleet in being', in that their mere existence forced the allies to commit their own capital ships to the area in case they turned up to attack some convoy.
Of course, had the Germans not built their own capital ships, the Allies would have also reacted, e.g. by not building or stationing their own capital ships in the area, and spending more resources on, say, anti-submarine efforts. So I'm not certain the battle of the Atlantic would have turned out any different in this case either, just even more bloody.
So here's the big problem with that thesis: the attacks at Pearl Harbor and Midway stretched the IJN's supply and logistical capabilities to their utmost limits. It's very likely that in any actual attempt to take Pearl Harbor, the US would have sabotaged the port facilities to the point that it would have required months, if not years [1], to bring it back up to an operational status capable of being used as a forward operating base for striking the US West Coast. Oh, and this is Hawaii--everything has to be brought in from the mainland, which means you're diverting a lot of shipping to maintain a supply line while you're repairing the harbor at the same time. Which is going to be vulnerable to submarine activity the entire time, and Japanese anti-submarine practices were terrible.
Yes, Hawaii is the strategic linchpin of the Pacific Ocean. However, it is so remote that actually acquiring strategic control is extremely challenging. At the same time, Japan is basically running against the clock: the Essex carriers start commissioning at the beginning of 1943, and that's the countdown Japan is running against. Japan just doesn't have the time to consolidate Pearl Harbor into an advance operating base, even if it could theoretically capture it.
[1] Keep in mind that the US was still in the middle of upgrading Pearl Harbor to serve as Pacific Fleet anchorage, which was I believe a decade-long process.
Taking Hawaii at all is already outlandish, no chance that if they found a way to pull that off, they'd be able to supply it heavily enough to make it an active seaport, patrol the waters to the east aggressively, or carry out attacks against the US West Coast and their land-based defenses at a high enough tempo to impede shipbuilding there. Similarly, maintaining enough spies and subs to track ship sorties and ambushing them at the Panama Canal isn't in the cards for them.
WWII is ultimately a logistics war. Individual battles don't really matter that much, whoever makes the most stuff will win eventually somehow, and whoever is on the other side from them will lose. Japan was way too far behind on industrial capacity to have a chance. Maybe if they managed to pull off their Co-Prosperity Sphere plan without any interference and make the most of it, they'd have the capacity in 40 years. But that's doubtful too, since everyone else in their so-called Co-Prosperity Sphere hated their guts due to horrible occupation practices on the part of the IJA.
The war was a Japanese gamble and quite a few intelligent Japanese predicted it would fail.
Japanese military planners in 1937 knew an invasion of China would be a waste of precious resources for little potential gain. But they were sidelined by younger military officers that wanted a shot at battlefield glory and ignored orders from above for a ceasefire after the Marco Polo bridge incident. And after the first battlefield victories started rolling in it became politically impossible to halt the momentum for continued war.
Any Japanese fleet unlucky enough to come within five hundred miles of Oahu would be subject to an unending stream of heavy US bombers like the B17 escorted by long range fighters such as the P-38.
There would be little chance of any surprise either with radar installations far improved and a vigilant picket line of US subs.
Landing troops without air superiority would have been impossible, and it’s unclear whether a Japanese carrier fleet could even hold off US battle ships if they sailed with US air cover.
To win that parley, land troops and push a large US Army force off Oahu is almost impossible. But even then, to raid the US coast with your remaining fleet, against an even more formidable air and sea defense many thousands of miles from any resupply would be a disaster for the Japanese Navy.
The conventional narrative of the battle is that the torpedo bombers (coming in low as part of their standard attack pattern), drew off the IJN figher cover, using up their fuel and ammo. When the dive bombers attacked the IJN fleet, the figher cover wasn't in a position to stop them effectively.
The price paid for this "distraction" (which wasn't planned as such) was steep, the losses among the torpedo bomber squadrons was severe.
As for fuel fires, yes, several IJN carriers were essentially lost due to fuel fires or explosions after suffering damage that otherwise would have been perfectly survivable. Perhaps most spectacularly in the case of Taiho, were inept damage control essentially turned the entire ship into a giant fuel air bomb, resulting in a spark somewhere setting of a massive explosion with catastrophic loss of life (and the end of the ship).
The USN lost Lexington that way, but crucially, they learned from this incident and instituted a system where they purged the aviation fuel lines with CO2 (cooled exhaust gases, presumably?).
Also IJN carriers had dedicated damage control teams, and a very strict command hierarchy. If you weren't on such a team, you were supposed to do your assigned duty and not do anything about the ship burning or flooding. In the USN apparently everybody nearby was supposed to help with damage control efforts.
IJN had also saved on money and used iron piping for the fire suppression system, as steel was expensive or in limited supply in Japan. This turned out to not be such a good idea when the shock from a nearby bomb blast shattered the pipes. Also said piping was not zoned to nearly the same extent as on US carriers. Not a good combination, as you can imagine.
It's more lucky that they didn't attack the same targets, than that they hit their targets.
Also, not directly relevant, but I'll plug this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd8_vO5zrjo&t=1s&ab_channel=... it's great.
what was luck was that the scouting plane flying above tf-16 didn't spot them, and even there it's debatable since the task forces where there intentionally due to an overcast weather forecast and that overcast weather was what allowed them to remain hidden.
I may concede that yorktown being bombed twice was luck, or at least unlucky for the Japanese, but even then damage party skill played an important factor in the event.
With 6 carriers, all of the the Japanese wouldn't have had to decide between protecting their carriers vs attacking US carriers vs attacking Midway. They could have done it all.
Heck, even one more carrier, for a total of 5, would have significantly reduced the task-overload.
That's why the original Japanese plan for Midway had 6 carriers. So, why didn't they follow the plan?
The answer is the Battle of Coral Sea, a month earlier.
While the US lost one carrier (Lexington) and almost lost Yorktown, one Japanese carrier was significantly damaged while another lost most of its aircrew.
Japanese doctrine at the time didn't transfer pilots between carriers, so Coral Sea took two carriers from Midway.
If the Japanese had transferred pilots from the damaged carrier to the carrier without an aircrew, the Japanese could have had 5 carriers.
Five carriers would have likely resulted in a Japanese win at Midway.
That said, the US would win the war in the Pacific as long as it sank a Japanese carrier for every 2-3 it lost.
War games are not fair really. For either side. No-one know what the actual outcome of a manouver would be.
Also, if Red's commander is way better, Blue's paper strategy might still be preferable.
My feeling is that big military exercises is a exercise in logistics foremost.
Varies. Getting people familiar with command and control procedures is a key theme.
In the UK, 'Army HQ' manages the process of ensuring that forces are ready for operations - which is where the training happens. When the country deploys troops on an operation, various units and sub-units are assembled into a mission-specific force which is ultimately under the control of a Joint Task Force HQ, not the Army's peacetime HQ. Exercises are a key part of the peacetime 'readiness cycle' through which the various force elements are prepared for ops. An exercise might test the staff of a battlegroup HQ to receive orders from a Brigade HQ ('Higher Control' in exercise-speak) and in turn generate orders that are given to its constituent sub-unit HQs. Such an exercise might last for a week and have separate phases for Planning and Execution activities. The different HQ elements need this type of training because the precise mission-specific C2 arrangements simply don't exist when the forces are in their peace-time barracks.
Logistics are entirely simulated in such an exercise so that you don't need half the army around to train 50-100 staff. In fact there is such a thing as a Tactical Exercise Without Troops that totally focusses on HQ processes so as to avoid wasting the troops' time while the staff in the exercising HQ get their act together.
Field exercises using laser-simulated weapons might involve 'last mile' logistics activities but there is no way they will involve the complex logistics supply chains of a real deployed force.
I mean, put yourself into the hypothetical supreme naval planner of, say, the US or Japan at the time. Are you really going to gamble your entire nations (or empires, if you will) capability to project force overseas on the notion that air power is the future and battleships are obsolete? If you're wrong, the enemy battleship fleet will just shrug off your feeble aerial attacks and proceed to crush your navy and conquer your overseas assets.
So in that sense it's no surprise that both USN and IJN built both battleships and carriers. And at least the US kept building them long after Pearl Harbor (though the Iowas were all ordered before Pearl Harbor, but they weren't cancelled in favor of carriers or converted into such either).
It seems mostly like the powers that be weren't ready to accept it.
But again, it would still have been a very risky gamble that air power is the future when all your potential adversaries are building ever bigger battleships.
Per the fine article, Japan did devote their preparations to air superiority and carried out exactly the attack forewarned by the 1932 war games. So, yes, that seems to have been a good strategy.
The IJN seems to have been quite obsessed with their Kantai Kessen doctrine, where battleship fleets would slug it out in one decisive battle.
The point though is that this was a massive gamble on Japan's part in the 1930's. They had no idea if it would actually work.
On the other hand, it is worth noting that Japan’s early enthusiasm for aircraft carriers was partly driven by the terms of the Washington and London naval treaties, which limited its battleship fleet.
As for having evidence that a successful attack on Pearl Harbor could be made, its planners looked at not only the exercises described here, but also the British attack on the Italian fleet in Taranto harbor in 1940.
The exact quote escapes my google-fu sadly. I'm quite postive I've seen it in either one of Indy Neidell and his team's WW2 week-by-week episode[0] or one of the many excellent Drachinifel's videos about all things naval history[1].
[0] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCP1AejCL4DA7jYkZAELRhHQ [1] https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4mftUX7apmV1vsVXZh7RTw
So they’re very expensive and much more vulnerable than they were 30 years ago — what else is available to project power 10000 miles from the US in a robust and flexible way? When that thing exists I think we’ll adapt to it quickly.
But absent a major war proving the point (or not, as it may), that's sort of how the "end of the carrier" could play out peacefully over a longer time: Improved tracking of opponent carriers (be it through satellites, drones or whatever) and improved land-based weapons forces carriers to stand away further and further, necessitating longer ranged strike aircraft. Such aircraft need to be bigger to accommodate the required fuel load, requiring either bigger and more expensive carriers, or fewer planes carried and thus reduced strike capability. Rinse and repeat a few iterations, and at some point you start thinking "what's the point of a mobile carrier since the opponent keeps track of its location 24/7, and my strike aircraft have enough range to launch from land bases anyway?"
But either way, even if you know where the CSG is, it can defend itself and the land-based weapons have limited range. So if you're China, the U.S. Navy can go harass your shipping lanes, and protect their own supply lines going to strategic locations.
It’s not like the United States is sitting around saying well jeez I guess China built these missiles and we can’t do anything.
And how far is the radar range? Can you truly detect ship signatures with radar without the CSG being out of your range? Maybe a war started and the USAF bombed the Chinese radar stations? Idk.
Anyway, let’s say you launch missiles. Ok? Ships move. Ship missile defense shoots down some missiles, etc.
Now what do you do?
Idk why people think that the U.S. Navy hasn’t considered these things. As if China is going to just build some missiles and launch them and that’s that. Whenever you think things are that easy, you should wonder if you have a grasp on the scenario.
yes.
> Anyway, let’s say you launch missiles. Ok? Ships move. Ship missile defense shoots down some missiles, etc.
ships move means nothing at all, the missiles are tracking the ships with radar. missile defence shoots down some missiles yes, but usually the idea with these types of attacks is overwhealimg air defence systems with volume of fire, so you fire on the order of 30 missiles at once, and use a probabalistic attack to ensure one or two make it through
Overall, you seem to be the one that isn't very up-to-date. Missiles have been around for almost 80 years, but people are saying things are different now - maybe have a look into why. Hypersonic boost glide missiles can manouver sharply, travel at speeds of up to mach 5, have next to no radar signature, and can time their attacks and manouver such that they come at a carrier group from all angles at once. Many people in the pentagon are sounding the alarm - the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering recently said that such weapons hold carrier groups at risk, and ordered a review into how to defend against the threat. The department of defence has said several times that hypersonics are their "top priority". Just because you don't hear them besides themselves in the media doesn't mean they aren't seriously concerned, but this kind of thing naturally tends to be kept muted in order to not make it obvious if they are defenceless.
The biggest saving grace is that the current systems of this technology have on the order of 1000kms range. terrifying, but can be worked around. However, that range will inevitably increase with time.
I think you're misunderstanding how these missile systems work and overestimating their ability to "lock on" - it's not a video game where they have near-perfect accuracy.
> Hypersonic boost glide missiles can manouver sharply, travel at speeds of up to mach 5, have next to no radar signature, and can time their attacks and manouver such that they come at a carrier group from all angles at once.
Launch of these missiles can be detected by U.S. space-based assets via their thermal signatures, so the CSG would probably know they are coming (obviously anything can happen in war and maybe this doesn't happen, but it's likely to be detected).
Once detected the CSG can begin evasive maneuvers - spreading out for example. These ships are pretty quick and even small course adjustments may render the missiles ineffective. While the hypersonic missiles can adjust in-flight somewhat, it's much more difficult to be accurate with them. Think about it - they're launching missiles from hundreds of miles away to hit tiny ships in a gigantic ocean at a high rate of speed and those ships can shoot some of the missiles down (or at least the research is being done) and move around. It's difficult for the missile to adjust.
Think about it like this: China launches these missiles, and they're very fast but they're detected. USN ships start immediate evasive maneuvers. They don't have much time, but the missile is so fast it also doesn't have much time to adjust. It's never "locked on" in any sense you may be thinking. So can the ships get out of the way? A near miss might as well be a miss by a million miles. It remains to be seen.
There's also something to consider that they aren't cheap, and there aren't very many of them. These aren't simple cruise missiles, and a Chinese launch of such hypersonic missiles is likely to not be a repeatable attack - even so you open the launch sites up to response from the CSG or air assets from other locations. In many war game scenarios I've read, China essentially launches all of the missiles and damages USN assets in the region, but the U.S. just brings more while also retaliating and destroying Chinese assets. A quick and violent war is the best hope that China has (maybe the U.S. will back down) - but long term it loses a war of attrition based on the chess pieces and what's on the board.
So even if China launched missiles and they were wildly successful, it's not going to end the war but at best buy China some time and a moral victory.
Overall, I highly question the ability of Chinese capabilities to effectively track and put missiles on targets. These capabilities will probably improve over time (unless the Chinese nation collapses due to economic factors) which will basically mean that the U.S. will think twice before attacking China due to a serious concern about damage to naval assets.
> The department of defence has said several times that hypersonics are their "top priority". Just because you don't hear them besides themselves in the media doesn't mean they aren't seriously concerned, but this kind of thing naturally tends to be kept muted in order to not make it obvious if they are defenceless
When you read articles about the U.S. military "sounding the alarm" I would not take that at face value.
As an aside - if you're interested in further reading the Rand Corporation and others put out some pretty fascinating in-depth discussions about topics like these.
What makes you think that tracking a ship the size of a skyscraper would be difficult but that tracking a missile would be easy? Yes, the US satelite network will soon be able to detect this type of missile launches, they are working on that capability right now - I never said ships wouldn't know that they are coming, just that there is little they can do with that information if more than one or two missiles are launched.
You seem to be vastly underestimating how well these missiles can manouver. They can't adjust "slightly", they can make sharp turns, with many times more g-forces than a regular plane - a ship has no chance to outmanouver them, any manouvers would only be to present a lower profile to a single missile or to try to confuse the missile's tracking system using some other countermeasures
as for reading articles about the millitary "sounding the alarm" how does the dod itself sound https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/1934290...
Finally cost. Yes these missiles are expensive but that is several orders of magnitude lower than an aircraft carrier. Heck, its orders of magnitude lower than a single plane on that carrier
I don't think this is correct with ballistic missiles or these hypersonic missiles - please correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding is that it's not like a fighter jet locking on to a target and firing a missile. When these missiles are fired they are launched into a general area - in this case where the Chinese think the U.S. Navy ships are, and then after that the missiles will lock on to a target as they re-enter the atmosphere - they have a few seconds to adjust course and do so. They can miss.
> You seem to be vastly underestimating how well these missiles can manouver. They can't adjust "slightly", they can make sharp turns, with many times more g-forces than a regular plane - a ship has no chance to outmanouver them, any manouvers would only be to present a lower profile to a single missile or to try to confuse the missile's tracking system using some other countermeasures
What I'm not saying is the U.S. Navy can just run away or something from the missiles once they are in range, but the ships can move and the missiles can miss.
> as for reading articles about the millitary "sounding the alarm" how does the dod itself sound
It doesn't sound like anything - it's no different. These are just reports that come out form the bureaucracy. The DoD sounds the alarm on all sorts of things.
https://www.ausn.org/post/navy-sounds-the-alarm-on-biden-s-d...
> Finally cost. Yes these missiles are expensive but that is several orders of magnitude lower than an aircraft carrier. Heck, its orders of magnitude lower than a single plane on that carrier
Cheaper than a carrier but dunno about planes. Maybe the cost can come down over time if they aren't already cheaper.
Also in the grand scheme of things the US Navy can just stay out of their range and harass supply lines, and then U.S. forces in the region can attack these missile systems and destroy them, then the US Navy can move in.
The main concern really isn't these missiles. They present a problem, of course, because they make it difficult for the U.S. Navy to effectively operate in the region (and by effectively operate we mean unimpeded), but they aren't an ace in the hole or some sort of trump card that the Chinese have.
All other anti-ship missiles are guided. How bad that can end was shown in the Falkland war, the Royal Navy suffered quite a lot from Argentinian Exocets. Bought from France.
A F-35 is what, 35 million dollar plus, excluding the pilot and training cost? Missiles are cheaper, by order of magnitude.
The hypersonic missiles are like ICBMs though. They operate similarly and enter the atmosphere before coming back down. They’re not nuclear weapons where you can be close enough, they have to be accurate. A miss by 3 feet jug as well be a miss by a mile.
As the missile enters the atmosphere it only has a few seconds to course correct to hit a moving ship. The ship can potentially move just out of harms way. Not the most likely scenario but definitely plausible.
> All other anti-ship missiles are guided. How bad that can end was shown in the Falkland war, the Royal Navy suffered quite a lot from Argentinian Exocets. Bought from France.
Different kinds of missiles. Can’t really compare them.
> A F-35 is what, 35 million dollar plus, excluding the pilot and training cost? Missiles are cheaper, by order of magnitude.
Not sure that these particular missiles are. I think it’s likely they’re closer to $20mm-$30mm in cost. Plus all of the ones China has are basically R&D missiles and not proven.
I guess what you're arguing for is that if friendly satellites or whatever reconnaissance assets detect a ballistic or hypersonic missile launch, the targeted ship (or realistically, all friendly ships in the area that could potentially be targets?) can change course, and in the 10 mins(?) it takes the missile to arrive the ship can be in quite another location than that estimated at missile launch time.
I would guess such missile systems would incorporate mid course guidance updates, but then again such comms could potentially be jammed.
I don't claim it's some secret that only china has or anything like that - the US and several other countries have deployed them as well. Its just that the vulnerability of carrier groups to them necessitates a shift in naval strategy closer to "fleet in being" - essentially that capital ships are too valuble to risk losing so are restricted in where they can operate because they are more valuble as a deterrrent than they would be actually fighting - which reduces power projection ability of carriers, similar to what the early 20th century did to battleships
The Chinese also don’t have a multi-direction launch capability.
The carriers are definitely vulnerable to them in general, but the notion that the carriers are now all of a sudden the same as battleships is an easy and lazy mindset to adopt. “X must be like Y” is a failure in thinking - “oh our startup will just be the Uber for X”. “We’ll be the Amazon of Y industry” etc.
Instead of saying battleships did this thing and then I think these other things will be like them, you should start with the opposite assumption and deduce from that. Assume you’re completely wrong and figure out why carriers aren’t like battleships. It will be an interesting exercise. A good question to ask would be like what’s the point of carriers if there is nothing for the planes to bomb? That makes them actually useless. Even in a scenario where the Chinese are completely capable with these missiles the U.S. fleet can just take over the oceans anyway and then what?
The U.S. has power projection independent of the carrier fleet.
If your views are strongly aligning with what you would hear on Fox News or Reddit you should be very cautious in the certainty in which you hold those views.
+ if I had to bet, then I'd bet that modern submarines, smart mines & rockets can take out any carrier, ship or whatever, it's just that no one has done it yet for obvious reason of not starting a new WW. It's stealth & speed that gives an edge these days, instead of displaying big, slow chunks of metal in a middle of big swaths of water + even 1 "missed" rocket can make the any ship incapacitated or sunk.. & now imagine 100 hypersonic missiles launched as a swarm.
Imo carriers and ships in general are the "battleships of WW2" (considered supreme, failed miserably). Yes, still works against small countries, with limited capabilities and as a "display of power", yet practically I'd assume they'd be sunk during the first days of a REAL full scale conflict. One should never forget the level of technology during WW2 compared to these days.
ps. it's interesting that China is always considered agreesor, though it's the US that's been involved (directly & indirectly) in most of the wars of the 19th, 20th & 21st century + is the TOP1 seller of the weaponry in the world as of today.
Perhaps by these SAR satellites China has been launching? SAR satellites have AFAIU been fairly effectively miniaturized recently, enabling a wannabe-superpower like China to send up hundreds or even thousands of them if they want to, making it infeasible to destroy them all cost-effectively at least with today's technology.
I'm not sure what the current level of coverage these things have, but it seems that today the technology exists to track surface naval assets day and night, and through clouds, at a somewhat affordable cost (for a superpower wannabe). So the trick of hiding a carrier battle group in the vast ocean might no longer work.
> the carrier group can move and also shoot down missiles.
Considerably more difficult for ballistic missiles. I would also imagine that missiles in principle could be relatively affordable if they were mass-produced; today they are expensive because they are expensive to develop and there's no demand for a huge number of them. So you could saturate the defenses with enough missiles that even if many were shot down, at some point a sufficient number of them are going to get through.
> Oh and once you do launch those missiles you’ve committed to a big time war, and you’re open to counter-attack by American forces - not just the carriers but also land-based strike forces.
Of course, but that goes the other way as well; if those carriers launch strikes against a big modern opponent you're also in for a big time war. I just hope neither side commits such a folly.
> It’s not like the United States is sitting around saying well jeez I guess China built these missiles and we can’t do anything.
Of course not. Then again, China probably doesn't build those missiles because they think US carrier groups will easily shoot them down. Both sides certainly have smart people, as well as ossified bureaucracies gunning for the last war.
Note I'm not saying the time of carriers is gone. But it's been 80 years since carriers became the kingmakers of naval force projection, and technology has developed quite a bit since, and there (luckily!) has been no major conflict testing out these new developments. I just think it's foolish to be very certain one way or another.
Sure it's possible. I think it's challenging overall but it seems neither of us are completely sure.
> Considerably more difficult for ballistic missiles.
Kind of. Ballistic missiles follow a predictable trajectory - the difference is these hypersonic missiles while mostly following predictable trajectories they can adjust a little bit more at the last second to hit a target.
> I would also imagine that missiles in principle could be relatively affordable if they were mass-produced; today they are expensive because they are expensive to develop and there's no demand for a huge number of them. So you could saturate the defenses with enough missiles that even if many were shot down, at some point a sufficient number of them are going to get through.
Potentially, but then the U.S. may have its own counter-measures. As I think about the costs, the cheapest the cruise missile got to was around $1,000,000. So I wonder how cheap you can make hypersonic missiles in order to create enough of them? They'd have to be hypersonic too b/c the U.S. is likely shooting down others that get too close to the CSG.
But also, what if China goes and builds all these missiles for a war that never comes? Or rather, what if the U.S. just keeps the fleet out of range and just chokes off Chinese supply lines from the sea?
> Of course not. Then again, China probably doesn't build those missiles because they think US carrier groups will easily shoot them down. Both sides certainly have smart people, as well as ossified bureaucracies gunning for the last war.
I agree.
> Note I'm not saying the time of carriers is gone. But it's been 80 years since carriers became the kingmakers of naval force projection, and technology has developed quite a bit since, and there (luckily!) has been no major conflict testing out these new developments. I just think it's foolish to be very certain one way or another.
My bias here is not so much with carriers or the U.S. Navy but by overestimating these missiles and their effectiveness. Whenever I hear all of the armchair generals talking about something (myself included) I immediately have to wonder how we're wrong and why we're wrong. It's like everyone predicting the next market bubble - they latch on to a relatable idea (China has so many missiles they can blow up all of our ships) and stick to it and then barely question that assumption.
I have no idea about the exact capabilities of the Chinese military SAR satellites. But considering that a dinky little startup with a few tens of millions in funding like Iceeye is able to launch half a dozen smallsats with SAR's that have been used for, among others, tracking fishing vessels that have gone dark (shut down their AIS transponders), it seems almost obvious that a high-tech wannabe-superpower would be able to launch boatloads of similar things in order to track foreign naval surface vessels.
> Kind of. Ballistic missiles follow a predictable trajectory - the difference is these hypersonic missiles while mostly following predictable trajectories they can adjust a little bit more at the last second to hit a target.
I was thinking of this supposed Chinese anti-shipping ballistic missile (DF-21D) that has some mid/late course correction ability. The hypersonics everybody is excited about these days are of course a further step ahead of these kinds of things. But yes.
> They'd have to be hypersonic too b/c the U.S. is likely shooting down others that get too close to the CSG.
I think a stealthy subsonic (subsonic for fuel economy enabling long range without having to boost (almost) out of the atmosphere like a ballistic or hypersonic) missile could be an interesting design point - with a supersonic terminal stage. Not sure if such things are on the drawing board anywhere.
> But also, what if China goes and builds all these missiles for a war that never comes?
The same accusation can be leveled at all military spending. What if the US builds a dozen carriers and accompanying battle groups and a war never comes (not counting bombing some 3rd world tinpot dictator)? Oops, the US already did that. You can of course say they provide deterrence or whatever, but so can the Chinese.
> My bias here is not so much with carriers or the U.S. Navy but by overestimating these missiles and their effectiveness. Whenever I hear all of the armchair generals talking about something (myself included) I immediately have to wonder how we're wrong and why we're wrong. It's like everyone predicting the next market bubble - they latch on to a relatable idea (China has so many missiles they can blow up all of our ships) and stick to it and then barely question that assumption.
Fair enough. It's easy enough to get carried away speculating on the capabilities of weapons systems which are closely guarded state secrets.
...but with the advent of hypersonic missiles, drones, small attack boats, I have serious doubt how long they would last in any modern non-nuclear conflict.
Compare that to trying to hit say the USS Ronald Reagan. It is capable of moving 700 miles a day. They need to track its location, have a firing solution, and continuously update the tracking to ensure they actually hit it as opposed to a near miss. All of these stages could be disrupted by US assets.
The article is about dismissing proven danger as being unrealistic. All you need to do is to have some radar stations (and not to ignore it) and patrol aircrafts and a good alerting system so you can raise your planes in the air. It is that simple.
The video you linked makes that clear.
You might remember that the Ronald Reagan was sunk by a Swedish stealth submarine in 2005 [1] and that there is little hope to save the Baltic and Taiwan if Russia and China decide to occupy them [2].
[1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-games-swedish-ste...
[2] https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-t...
> Key Point: Why are we still building aircraft carriers when even Sweden can sink them?
Oi.
Still a fair question, though.
Answering a conventional strike in international waters with a nuclear one (and at different target instead of the original attacker, since you can't really nuke a sub) is crossing the Rubicon, there's no going back from that.
And that’s exactly how it should be and has been since ww2. You use nukes when someone else uses nukes. No exception. In a perfect world this keeps the balance
If they are in international waters than nobody will care. But China doesn’t have the resources to build ships to routinely project power off the US coast. Ask yourself - why are they building empty skyscrapers? Couldn’t they build ships instead?
Chyna fear is very overrated.
If the USSR had put nukes everywhere around the US, even in international waters, we would not be here to discuss this today so yes people do care, a lot.
As to why they "build skyscrapers instead of warships", that's already explained in the comment you reply to. In short: because China isn't going the route of massive military to become top dog. It will become top dog without raising the part of its GDP it already spends today. Why spend a lot more on ships now when everything points to you being both richer, more technologically advanced and with better industrial capacity in 30 years than the US? Unless something significant happens China will win "the war" without firing a single shot while on the other hand the US will likely need ICBMs to "win".
You can double check if you want but pretty sure U.S./E.U. adversaries like China and Russia already do flybys and have ships sail close via international waters. It’s good for a quick media hit in western countries but nobody who is serious or matters really cares about it. The U.S. does this all the time - called freedom of navigation exercises. The Chinese or Iranians will saber rattle a bit for no good reason other than strengthening their crappy, despotic regimes, but nothing comes of it.
Re China: I think you’re wrong, largely. First, China as a whole should be wealthier. It has 4x the population. It should have 2x-3x the GDP of the U.S. yet it doesn’t. Interesting.
Second, building empty skyscrapers is a hallmark of collapsing nation states of planned economies. It’s motion for the sake of motion. It’s like a broken window fallacy.
The U.S. has some very interesting advantages and certainly doesn’t need nuclear weapons to win “the war”. It’s winning it right now as China faces a population catastrophe and the U.S. continues chugging along like always.
Again, Chyna (Trumps terms) fear is overrated. Not sure what people/Trumpists are so worried about.
> Why spend a lot more on ships now when everything points to you being both richer, more technologically advanced and with better industrial capacity in 30 years than the US?
Not sure any projections are really convincing here. And the U.S. isn’t even trying as a unified country and is spending massive amounts of money wastefully (Iraq/Afghanistan, etc.).
That said, while incidents like Sweden "sinking" a carrier have happened and embarassed the Navy, carriers have been present in multiple wars since WW2 (Vietnam, Persian Gulf, Iraq War) and haven't been sunk. If it's really that easy, one would think it would have happened when enemies actually were motivated to inflict such a loss. This suggests that the wargame conditions aren't very reflective of actual doctrine.
The red force in the millenium challenge had access to significant capabilities that Iraq and Vietnam did not have access to such as incredibly accurate anti-ship cruise missiles.
https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-r...
Yes they’re expensive. Yes they’re more vulnerable than in the past. But they can do things nothing else can. Is there another cheaper way to set up a complete airbase wherever you want 10000 miles from home?
An interesting question is whether you actually need a mobile airbase which necessitates large quantities of costly defensive weapons ( The new Ford carrier sails with 6 1.8 Billion dollar Arleigh-Burke class Destroyers ).
Considering a tomahawk costs roughly 1 million dollars, it may be more efficient for the Navy's power projection goals to use more portable missile platforms instead of a mobile airbase.
That was the idea between both the “arsenal ship” concept that hasn’t (yet) materialized, and the SSGN conversion of a number of Ohio-class ex-SSBNs, which has.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Strike_Group_12#2019_d...
It's possible that this was an atypical deployment.
With a proper counterattack, they can be liberated. The war isn't over just because the attacker says so.
Not to be melodramatic, but we should all keep in mind how terrible a war would be.
On the other hand if a war breaks out and the US gets in the middle of it because of power projection (like in the South Chinese sea) then the other side didn't start it, they escalated. You don't see PRC warships, army bases, etc. as a mainstay everywhere around US borders and coastal waters. If we did the US would instantly escalate to WW3.
And China isn't forced to go to war with the US over Taiwan. What's your point?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27346478
> In other wargames: > You might remember that the Ronald Reagan was sunk by a Swedish stealth submarine in 2005 [1] and that there is little hope to save the Baltic and Taiwan if Russia and China decide to occupy them [2].
> [1] https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/war-games-swedish-ste...
> [2] https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-t...
Carriers were/are? more for the vast supply lines going towards the areas where e.g. Swedish/Japanese stealth submarines would be bottling up Russian/Chinese assets near their coasts.
China in particular has thousands and thousands of miles of neck extending into and out of the Indian Ocean.
[1] https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a1...
I wonder how this sort of story would look when put into the context of a large scale investigation into military strategy and dissenting voices. When these contrarians pop up are they usually right? Maybe there are heaps of them and 9 out of 10 times conventional military strategy is the better option?
Modern military history seems to have so many examples of leaders being wrong, including 'successful' ones, it's hard to extract a clear narrative in many cases.
http://paulgraham.com/newideas.html
Ernest King (the red team commander in the second wargame) wasn't a random newbie: he eventually served as Chief of Naval Operations in WW2. And a successful wargame is about as strong evidence as you can get. Amazingly, real-world experience is still often discounted by people in charge, which shows the power that existing paradigms and status-quo bias have on people.
It leaves all but an elite few in the dust when reality suddenly changes in what's perceived to be an instant. Most normally competent people will behave as complete morons for the 6-12 months it takes them to understand the new reality. Of course, reality has been changing for a long time, but in principle there's still time to react when it becomes obvious to well-placed observers.
I'm sure that an organization that's able to internalize that lesson will have an immense strategic advantage in a conflict against a peer force. Whether that be a virus, a military adversary or a competing industrial entity.
While medical system is patting themselves on the shoulder, they completely missed the opportunity.
The missed actions were
a) human challenge studies to tremendously speed up the validation of efficacy and b) war time like effort to invest into vaccine production facilities.
Human challenge studies were rejected by ethical committees - like the risk of health of few tens of thousands were greater than the life of millions.
I am not sure what prevented the proper scale up of the production.
And when did they start to ramp up the production?
[0]: https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-d... [1]: https://investors.modernatx.com/news-releases/news-release-d...
Having direct experience with wargames, I have to disagree with this. Wargames are weak evidence that too often lead people to draw unwarranted conclusions from an n of 1. The adjudication of moves by blue and red teams by the white cell is more arbitrary than not, and white cell adjudicators will often rule in ways that continue to present dilemmas for the players for the purpose of extending the experiential utility of the game. Those adjudication decisions are not strictly (nor could they be) representative of reality.
Doing a well-run wargame is very difficult, and doing a sufficient number of them simultaneously in order to test a hypothesis (with an n greater than even 1-2) is almost never done.
Wargames are more experiential and exploratory, they do not generate anything close to evidence.
I seem to recall a similar response to massed small boats (simulating) taking out a U.S. carrier in war games a few years ago. Implying that the Persian Gulf is far more dangerous than previously understood. AIUI the Navy did nothing but cry foul. Maybe the strategy has been changed in response since.
General Van Riper used low-tech but effective techniques like using motorcycle messengers to transmit orders in a way that could not be intercepted by US ELINT/COMINT or blocked by jamming.
We are lucky Saddam did not have inventive Marine generals, because any general smart enough to be effective would have been eliminated as a potential threat to his regime.
Saved our asses in the European theater, in WWII. Hitler was an insecure micromanager.
His generals represented generations of military expertise. They were really good.
There's a number of places where Germany could have won the war, but were short-circuited by der dumkopf fuhrer
Oil was very important to a mechanized army.
Stalin knew Hitler's objectives well because of how hard Hitler was pushing for oil in negotiations before they became foes, and strategically positioned Russia's army in a way to block Hitler's advance specifically to key oil locations, while leaving other locations relatively weaker.
They were foes before they became foes. While it had the non-aggression pact, Germany could have easily persuaded Russia to give it a pass on acquiring oil by aggression in the Middle East. Germany had two reasons to not do this -- a long supply line for oil to Germany from the Middle East would have been impossible to defend if Russia wanted to sever it, and German territorial acquisitions in the Middle East would be of little value as real estate on which German people could be settled to live a prosperous Germanic lifestyle. Dictators planning world domination do not publish their enemy lists.
This sounds interesting, do you have any sources about this?
> His generals really screwed up the Eastern theatre in the late 1940s.
My limited understanding of the eastern front is that: a, Hitler ordered the initial attack despite the warning of his generals b, forbid any (even tactical) retreat when the tides turned which eventually led to the destruction of multiple army groups.
The problem here being that his generals warned against all of his other attacks earlier in the war which were amazingy succesful. I suppose he felt that he knew better by the time of the Eastern front.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the attack on Stalingrad was a diversion for a symbolic victory ordered by Hitler. And when German forces were getting beat he ordered them to fight to the last man, and the general in charge was a rule follower and did not disobey orders.
In other words, I think you’re blaming the wrong person here. Germany’s generals were on the way to the Caucasus to do exactly what was needed (from Germany’s perspective) but Hitler stopped them because he was going crazy and wasn’t a good military commander.
Another general that comes to mind os Field Marshal Haig. He wanted a break through on the Western Front in WW1. He got a war of attrition, which worked for him and not for the Germans. So he thought going for a break through was the way to go. It worked in the end, but for the wrong reasons.
That being said, a lot of German WW2 generals are over hyped, first on their memoirs and then by anti-communist "propaganda".
If the Iranians could have they would have done so already. There's a reason why they had resorted to militias and sectarian violence in Iraq instead.
A successful strike on a US carrier group would inevitably lead to large scale reprisals on both the attacking force and the nation launching the attack. Iran wouldn't kill a carrier just to prove they could, and would instead reserve such an attack for the event of a Carrier group attacking something of existential importance to the Iranian state.
Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.
Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships: one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of Blue's six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.
Burying your head in the sand only makes you part of the problem.
Fortunately for everybody, I have no influence on any military nor political force anywhere. Or any relevant responsibility for that matter. The world is safe from my wrong opinions.
Thus you have discounted the strategy that disclosing exactly what happened misleads future enemies the most.
Such as the fact that the motorcycle messengers traveled at the speed of light to instantaneously transmit orders. The fact that the salvo of cruise missiles came from boats which could not carry them, and the fact that simulator's fleet defenses were turned off to prevent them from targeting commercial air and commercial shipping.
"Van Riper famously used "motorcycle couriers" to get around the destruction of his C2 network. The problem was that this was handled as simple handwaving, with him saying that he would use motorcycle messengers to handle all the message traffic. Despite supposedly doing so, he continued to relay messages as if he doing so with a normal communications network. Essentially, his motorcycle messengers were treated as being just as efficient as an electronic communications network. Clearly, that wouldn't be possible, hence the folks joking about "light speed motorcycles"."
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/WarCollege/comments/la7elp/so_what_...
The top brass then "re floated" and announced the US Navy must sail from Pearl and so be ambushed, as per plan.
So, yeah, risk management is everything
Flying nap of the Earth with a Cobra probably works because he knew the location where the AA system was located, there were no other "combatants", no air cover or spotters/infantry along the route to inform the AA that helicopter is flying low.
SF story about circling back is fun, but in a real scenario it would mean you kill a couple of guys but end up surrounded by unknown number of people and infantry.
https://warontherocks.com/2015/11/millennium-challenge-the-r...
The point of the millenium challenge was to see if modern advances in C3 could allow a numerically inferior force to the one used in Desert Storm could invade Iraq successfully.
What they discovered was against a tenacious and unconventional enemy willing to use elite troops in daring and near suicidal ways then America would take unacceptable losses.
But.....
That's not the enemy they were going to face. They were going to face the Iraqi army. So whislt on the face of it the "reset" was ludicrous it was also appropriate.
And, I was a critic of the US military's strategy for the Invasion of Iraq, I thought the force ratios were insufficient and I was wrong. The Millennium Challenge did indeed show that C3 advances were sufficient to allow the lower force ratios to succeed.
(Of course the Millennium Challenge did have other failures in the limits of what it was testing. The occupation of Iraq was botched from the opening days as whilst the force numbers were sufficient to beat the Iraq army they were not sufficient to occupy the country in a way that stopped it descending into chaos)
That said, this statement isn’t quite this simple, “ they were not sufficient to occupy the country in a way that stopped it descending into chaos.” The US administration made a decision to disband the Iraqi military and it’s other paramilitary forces. That meant that all existing structure for maintaining order in the country was lost. By doing this, it necessitated a large occupation force, that never was created, and only made the US more hated there.
Look at the occupations of Germany and Japan after WWII and it’s a very different outcome and one where existing systems were left in place to help maintain an orderly transition.
A "tenacious and unconventional enemy willing to use elite troops in daring and near suicidal ways" particularly known for their use of speedboats blended with more traditional military material is the Revolutionary Guard's MO.
Unless our strategies radically change.
> In 2002 the Pentagon ran an expensive wargame designed to simulate what a war with Iran would be like—and the U.S. lost heavily.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a30392654/millenni...
> That time a Marine general led a fictional Iran against the US military – and won
https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/that-time-a-marine-g...
> Learning Curve: Iranian Asymmetrical Warfare and Millennium Challenge 2002
https://cimsec.org/learning-curve-iranian-asymmetrical-warfa...
Iraq's military was set up completely different than what red team did, as Iraq tried to have a traditional, symmetric military. This is because, as a minority controlled nation, they were attracted to the added legitimacy it gave their regime to not have a focus on assymetric warfare. Tanks in columns make the state look stronger to the populace, even if you get trounced in an actual battle.
This is why when real wars happen and the stakes actually suddenly matter there tends to be a large upheaval at the top to discard the political animals. When was it the last time you heard of a US general being fired for incompetence when a procurement projects they led goes totally off the rails (as they almost always do), blowing any notion of budget, time & preparedness ?
From what I've read, if they had taken out our reserves there, our entire foothold in the pacific would have been lost for a year plus while we rebuilt, and we would've had to move our carrier forces back to the pacific coast, which would've been devastating at the time. The entire pacific theatre effort from the U.S. would've been crippled before it could've started.
War is really just a game of logistics.
Thankfully (for the RN...) reason prevailed and submarines were in service for the First World War. The pirates association lives on today though - RN submarines returning from deployment still fly the Jolly Roger.
Clearly they needed some kind of early warning system, and they actually installed a radar installation which was brand new technology at the time. (Unfortunately, they didn't heed the warning when it came.) What else should they have done?
It has gone before. As the training of Ag. And ... It is going now.
Good luck USA.
PS: FDR began sending supplies to the USSR before pear harbor despite its mass murder and atrocities across Eurasia and extreme unpopularity of the Soviet government with the US public. The embargo with Japan was made for geopolitical reasons and any "humanitarian" argument is post hoc.
EDIT: Remarkably, President Herbert Hoover remained politically active in the post-FDR media landscape and his account of the events and of FDRs actions leaves little room for doubt about FDRs aims in his foreign policy with Japan.
https://www.hoover.org/research/freedom-betrayed-herbert-hoo...
Also why would you pin the fundamental blame on FDR cutting off the oil? Japan was running a pretty brutal occupation of China at the time. Continuing to supply oil would be supporting that occupation. It's true though that part of Japan's motive for the attack was that oil was running out.
See chapter 8 of The Challenge of Grand Strategy: The Great Powers and the Broken Balance between the World Wars. War between Japan and the United States was a certainty to FDR's advisors if an oil embargo was imposed.
Japan's oil was cut off in 1941 because they started seizing Southeast Asian colonies of European powers that had been occupied by Germany in 1940, and these colonies were significant suppliers of oil and rubber for the conflict in Europe. If Japan had limited its activities to China the US might have continued its war profiteering indefinitely.
July 4, 1898, the Newlands Resolution was a joint resolution by the United States Congress to annex the independent Republic of Hawaii. In 1900, Congress occupied the Territory of Hawaii, despite the opposition of most native Hawaiians.
Dec 7, 1941 is when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, Hawai'i, an occupied territory.
August 21, 1959 is when they were forcibly turned into a state, after 60 years of occupation.
Note that Japan did not bomb native settlements and cities where civilians and natives lived - only the occupying force.
Edit: both posts are at -4. And indeed it's sad to see close minded nationalism take and keep hold. The world is bigger than from Hawai'i to Maine, and the USA is often the aggressor. I liken to consider myself a citizen of the earth, and not any one nation.
With the end objective of occupying themselves, like they occupied so many countries during WWII.
> Note that Japan did not bomb native settlements and cities where civilians and natives lived - only the occupying force.
Yes, because those settlements had no military value, so they focused on targets of military importance. When able, the Japanese had no hesitation about killing or raping local inhabitants of the places they occupied during and before WWII - see Nanking and Korean "Comfort Women".
I'm OK with someone criticizing US conduct in Hawaii in the years leading up to WWII, but let's not pretend that imperial Japan was some kind of benign force for good in the world during the same time period.
No Choice but War: The United States Embargo Against Japan and the Eruption of War in the Pacific
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvqmp3br Beyond Pearl Harbor: A Pacific History
And you'll find out that there was continual and worsening relations with Japan due to US imperialism. Hawai'i was only one such territory colonized and conquered.
And there were economic sanctions from 1931 to 1941 for various products.
But this is also out of the US playbook to surround an enemy or proposed enemy, pull out economic sanctions, and then pull out the single bad thing. For example, here's the AFB's around Iran https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-4d67205db3b8a9d820ca77... , but we're supposed to only look at Natanz nuclear refining.
Now, I'm not saying that Japan was honorable in combat. They death-marched Chinese. The "comfort women" were rape and murder victims. But really, all nations have similar horrific stories. Japan, alike the US, was no different in that regard.
Tangential: if anyone is interested in learning more about this, I recommend the YouTube channel History Buffs' review of the film The Last Samurai
For that reason, Imperial Japan certainly ranks right up there together with Nazi Germany as the most evil regimes in recent history, and the US of that era does not (saying this as a non-US'ian who is generally pretty critical of the post-WWII foreign policy adventures the US has gotten itself involved in).
And the acts of Japan during that period stand out, even within a context of ‘everyone is bad.’
From Japan's perspective, the US actions may have left them no choice but war. That doesn't make the US actions wrong; it makes the Japanese pre-WWII perspective incredibly skewed and incredibly morally flawed.
The Japanese had no intention of occupying Hawaii. They simply wanted to incapacitate the US Pacific Fleet. Had the US Pacific Fleet's carriers been in port at Pearl Harbor at the time, they would have succeeded.
Ah yes, Imperial Japan, known for it's incredible humanity toward civilians.
It's risible and insane, but novel nonetheless.