Millennium Challenge 2002 - military simulation
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
I'm not necessarily saying Riper was wrong, but I just wanted to point out that the motivation for the reset runs deeper than "the games were designed to let blue win".
If this were a real war, with an underlying political situation, and Red sank an Blue aircraft carrier and killed 20,000 sailors in a day in a preemptive strike, Blue would respond with rules of engagement that would redefine the term "atrocity". This wouldn't make for a useful military exercise, and I don't think anyone wants to see the US military practicing simulated genocide just to maintain realism.
Additionally, if you're faced with certain defeat, this means you've lost significant deterrence. If not, it would be more intelligent to exhibit your capabilities to negotiate a truce.
War is a power struggle.
I'll remove some conditions then.
In a war situation, Red will take out a Blue carrier regardless of Blue's nuclear deterrent because they are at war. The nuclear deterrent makes Red reluctant to get to the point of war. Once at war, Red will either surrender under the threat (and hence not be a threat), or call Blue's bluff.
Edit: Also, the position that "they wouldn't dare take out my carrier because of the atrocity I'd do to them in return" is not a sensible military strategy during war.
But you are right, history shows that a "deterrent" of any nature, not just related to war, is often not considered leading up to whatever it is supposed to deter.
Yeah! How dare they defend their own country! </sarcasm>
However, where I feel we disagree is that how Red does it is important as they don't want to allow Blue to gain allies or to give the possibility to Blue to react in a way that would otherwise been politically impossible (ie nuclear weapons).
It would be good for the simulation to say that Blue should win without using nukes, and if using nukes, not damage the environment enough to make life hell for Blue and Blue's allies' populations.
Failing those, someone might decide, heck with it, I want my place in the history books.
The only countries I think have the sheer gall/crazy to use nukes would be China, India, Israel, or Pakistan.
Russia, the US, etc. hopefully still remember enough of the Cold War to be very bearish on the use of nukes in response to a conventional attack.
If we're going to spend resources the way that we do, our .mil ought to be able win against exactly such a case. In fact, I think the scenario could go worse for our .mil. Consider the case that we simply misjudge the political objective, which arguably could lead to more dire tactical mistakes. I've seen no reason to think that our .mil are immune from such a prospect. Nor do I think a prudent military planner would fail to consider it.
>If this were a real war, with an underlying political simulation, and Red sank an Blue aircraft carrier and killed 20,000 sailors in a day in a preemptive strike, Blue would respond with rules of engagement that would redefine the term "atrocity".
I keep hearing that argument about our military's capabilities, with specific respect paid to the technological capabilities. Yet, I observe results that suggest very strongly the notion that we have placed unwarranted faith in our ability to make effective use of tech. Unfortunately for us, such faith can serve no useful purpose and has no place in the mind of one making battle plans.
I think they were right to restart the war game, let them evolve their tactics; but, not to hobble Van Riper and turn the exercise into a quarter-billion dollar (false) confidence building exercise. You'd also have to think that troops are incredibly stupid if you expect them to fall for it.
Now, clearly the military has significant limits, but at some point you need to decide it's time to use a different tool.
Only a lunatic would go straight to a city-busting attack with strategic weapons.
I think it would have been interesting to saddle Van Riper with political objectives, then restart the simulation. Saddling him with tactical handicaps only served to validate the status quo.
> If this were a real war, with an underlying political situation, and Red sank an Blue aircraft carrier and killed 20,000 sailors in a day in a preemptive strike, Blue would respond with rules of engagement that would redefine the term "atrocity".
Or the opposition party in Blue's home would have used this chance to take control, with the narrative that the former leaders acted foolishly and got our nose bloody. Getting the most for our defense allocated tax dollars is sacrificed for political gain. So too is the US geopolitical position gamed for the sake of politics and money.
Causalities on both sides could have easily increased by a factor of 10. If the U.S. resorted to a full on genocide the situation would have escalated, possibly brining other nations (even westernised ones) into the mix. It wouldn't have been pretty.
1 http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/06/sprj.nilaw.ban...
If only it were that easy in real life.
After all, who cares if our simulation attempts to simulate realistic conditions?
The one who's to blame is whoever built the simulation, not Red for using it.
Are atomic bombs cheating? Because they're ridiculously powerful. They must be a bug in simulation, right? :P
> I have a weapon that destroys all resources of the opposing force
That's the atomic bomb.
Use of nuclear weapons would not be considered cheating in this case simply because they exist. The discussion about nuclear weapons was whether they would prove to be a deterrence or not, not whether they could be used.
And since you left out the second part of my fabricated weapon spec, I have to point out I wasn't speaking of nuclear weapons as they don't magically relocate the enemy personnel to a location of my choosing. But you knew that right?
P.S. The translation says "you downloaded 'stealth'" in one place. Believe me, they mean "you took down 'stealth'". It's not one of those "you wouldn't download a stealth bomber" things.
P.P.S. What does the standard say, if I start using apostrophes in a paragraph because the quote contains double quotes in it, should I use apostrophes for all my quotes or could I just switch back to double quotes?
A quote inside a quote uses single quotes. A quote inside a quote that's inside a quote goes back to double quotes. If that's what you're asking.
He said, "You said, 'My friend said, "Hello World!"'."
Thankfully that doesn't happen too often.
However, having read this, the comments here and particularly the article in exile.ru, Im wondering about the problem of the aircraft carrier. As I understand it, the point of these things is to plonk a use-able base near or in the theatre of operations. "Projecting power" is the phrase, I believe. Anyway, these operations, and other examples, talk about being 100 miles off shore, or something similar, and there for being vulnerable to small mass attacks, one of operations, or what ever. The conclusion seems to be that aircraft carriers are vulnerable sitting ducks, and there for useless. Further, carrier owners are some how wrong for wanting, using or advocating them. I disagree.
If one is going to engage in this sort of war, a base near where the war is to be fought is essential. The US (China, Russia, etc) cant do war in the middle east (or anywhere not close to the people doing war) with out some thing like a carrier, unless suddenly the locals get friendly and allow huge US bases on their land. Yes, deals were, are and will be done, but its not comprehensive or ideal. If it were, heh, why war? Oops, tangent...
Anyway, point being, the carrier is as vital as it is vulnerable. What needs to be sorted out is how you get them in place, then defend them. But IMHO, they are certainly not worthless, useless, or even slightly redundant. They are literally a part of the country that can be manoeuvred to different places. If you can't do that, you can easily do major war 1000's of miles away.
Edit: Or, I read too much Tom Clancy....
Anyone with details on this - some info would be hugely appreciated!
Reminds me of the documentary "The Fog of War".