As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[US Foreign Policy] Pithy Comment

16869717374100

Posts

  • CogCog What'd you expect? Registered User regular
    Helsinki is where pretense died.

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Not content with burning bridges in Turkey, the Trump adminstration has decided to use threats as a first resort here in the UK over Iran: the US ambassador decided that the classy way to negotiate is to take out adverts in the paper threatening HMG with "serious consequences" should we not knuckle under.

    https://www.newsweek.com/tump-ambassador-threatens-uk-serious-consequences-if-iran-trade-continues-1070999
    Nathalie Tocci, an aide to EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini, also told Britain’s BBC Radio 4 last week that Europe would issue additional sanctions against any EU business that caves to Trump’s pressure.

    “If EU companies abide by U.S. secondary sanctions they will, in turn, be sanctioned by the EU,” Tocci warned. Her comments followed another statement from the EU that said it would “forbid” European entities from complying with Washington’s punitive policies.

    UK trade with Iran is tiny, but trade with the EU isnt. And the US has already threatened a trade war, casting doubts on the value of appeasement.

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    Gaddez wrote: »
    [
    Gonna sneak this Q in here as we don't have a general military thread:

    Sanctions aside, why are we concerned about Turkey getting S-400s?

    Are we concerned the system will secretly report back by itself, or that the nature of the contract will allow Russia to openly collect this data?

    When I first heard about it, I thought Russia selling NATO their bleeding-edge air defense platform was an amazing espionage opportunity for us.

    It points towards greater co-operation between russia and turkey with the former being the state that the latter is nominally in a military alliance against.

    Yeah, had a think on it, and figured it's probably more about relationship dynamics than the missile system. Erdogan is not acting like a buddy right now, and Russia would probably pay him a pretty penny to for engagement data vs the F-35; let alone an F-35 itself.

    "Prove you won't by telling them where to stick that s-400 contract" seems like a reasonable ultimatum in that context; even absent any concerns that the delivered system (or associated service contract) would give Russia a backdoor.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    [
    Gonna sneak this Q in here as we don't have a general military thread:

    Sanctions aside, why are we concerned about Turkey getting S-400s?

    Are we concerned the system will secretly report back by itself, or that the nature of the contract will allow Russia to openly collect this data?

    When I first heard about it, I thought Russia selling NATO their bleeding-edge air defense platform was an amazing espionage opportunity for us.

    It points towards greater co-operation between russia and turkey with the former being the state that the latter is nominally in a military alliance against.

    Yeah, had a think on it, and figured it's probably more about relationship dynamics than the missile system. Erdogan is not acting like a buddy right now, and Russia would probably pay him a pretty penny to for engagement data vs the F-35; let alone an F-35 itself.

    "Prove you won't by telling them where to stick that s-400 contract" seems like a reasonable ultimatum in that context; even absent any concerns that the delivered system (or associated service contract) would give Russia a backdoor.
    I don't see why the President would be averse to making such an ultimatum.

    *waits 3 days*

    I meant wouldn't.

  • SealSeal Registered User regular
    Obviously Turkey's economy collapsing is by far worse, but if this leads to the cancellation of the F35, I'll take that as [small] consolation.

    Which it won't, I'm just dreaming.

    I wonder if F-35 pilots have bombs in their heads to prevent them from saying anything critical about their over-designed toaster of choice.
    By most accounts it's a dream to fly and the integrated IRST sensors and augmented reality in the visor give it a pretty large awareness advantage over any other platform. It's still really expensive, but replacing the Airforce's aging inventory was never going to be a bargain.

  • GONG-00GONG-00 Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    Seal wrote: »
    Obviously Turkey's economy collapsing is by far worse, but if this leads to the cancellation of the F35, I'll take that as [small] consolation.

    Which it won't, I'm just dreaming.

    I wonder if F-35 pilots have bombs in their heads to prevent them from saying anything critical about their over-designed toaster of choice.
    By most accounts it's a dream to fly and the integrated IRST sensors and augmented reality in the visor give it a pretty large awareness advantage over any other platform. It's still really expensive, but replacing the Airforce's aging inventory was never going to be a bargain.

    It's a swiss army knife that is never going to be great at any of the numerous roles assigned to it. Also, the slot where the Close Air Support hand saw should be is just a nail file. Oh, and that nail file is going to fill in for the chainsaw that is our aging A-10 fleet.

    GONG-00 on
    Black lives matter.
    Law and Order ≠ Justice
    ACNH Island Isla Cero: DA-3082-2045-4142
    Captain of the SES Comptroller of the State
    xu257gunns6e.png
  • SealSeal Registered User regular
    The gun on the F-35 can kill the same range of targets as the A-10. The A-10's gun can't kill a modern MBT and neither can the F-35, but they can take out APC's and lighter armored vehicles. The A-10 had its time and that time ended in 91 when it had to be pulled from front line service because they kept getting shot down. Plus they're old enough that they now run the risk of the wings randomly falling off because of accumulated microfractures.

  • HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    I bet sitting inside a modern MBT while it receives a burst of 30mm is a profoundly upsetting experience

    Broke as fuck in the style of the times. Gratitude is all that can return on your generosity.

    https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    Seal wrote: »
    The gun on the F-35 can kill the same range of targets as the A-10. The A-10's gun can't kill a modern MBT and neither can the F-35, but they can take out APC's and lighter armored vehicles. The A-10 had its time and that time ended in 91 when it had to be pulled from front line service because they kept getting shot down. Plus they're old enough that they now run the risk of the wings randomly falling off because of accumulated microfractures.

    Uhh what? The 91 was when it first saw deployment?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

    Like according to the wiki none of what you said is true, and doing a google search the wing thing was something brought up this year and then the airforce agreed to rewing them?

    https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a15914932/the-air-force-is-re-winging-a-10s-after-all/

    Like the airforce has tried to have it retired because they personally don't like the plane but ground troops do?

    Preacher on
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    From everything I've read about the F-35 I suspect most pilots would rather take their chances with the wing falling off.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Seal wrote: »
    The gun on the F-35 can kill the same range of targets as the A-10. The A-10's gun can't kill a modern MBT and neither can the F-35, but they can take out APC's and lighter armored vehicles. The A-10 had its time and that time ended in 91 when it had to be pulled from front line service because they kept getting shot down. Plus they're old enough that they now run the risk of the wings randomly falling off because of accumulated microfractures.

    Uhh what? The 91 was when it first saw deployment?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II

    Like according to the wiki none of what you said is true, and doing a google search the wing thing was something brought up this year and then the airforce agreed to rewing them?

    https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a15914932/the-air-force-is-re-winging-a-10s-after-all/

    Like the airforce has tried to have it retired because they personally don't like the plane but ground troops do?

    This isn't even a comprehensive representation of aircraft abilities. The A-10 has loitering ability well beyond the F-35's. Doesn't matter if you just stick a gun on a plane that can't stick around to find targets to shoot at.

  • SealSeal Registered User regular
    I don't want to spend too much time googling, but I'd accept in certain conditions an A-10 could at least mission kill a modern MBT. But they carry a variety of bombs vastly more effective for the task that can be used at less risk to the plane. And six A-10's were lost in the gulf war, not a great result considering their number and losses of other planes. F-16's flew 50% more sorties and suffered half the losses.

  • ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    perhaps that's because close air support is inherently a more risky combat role for a lot of reasons, none of which are within the scope of the foreign policy thread

  • ZibblsnrtZibblsnrt Registered User regular
    It doesn't make sense to compare a multirole fighter which spent a lot of its time not doing close air support or similar tasks to a plane that was designed to do just that.

    A-10s spent pretty much all of their sorties in the Gulf War in the neighborhood of nearby ground fire, which isn't something the F-16 had to worry about. Six aircraft lost in a campaign where the A-10s alone were credited with something like 5,500 ground vehicles destroyed is pretty trivial.

    I really super turbo-doubt the F-35 would be anywhere near as survivable when getting shot at, in any case...

  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    This seems like as good a time as ever to mention Ronan Farrow's book, War on Peace

    Its thesis is that essentially US foreign policy has been largely taken over by the intelligence community and the military, and that this has resulted in an over-emphasis on tactical and military-to-military arrangements (such as those with Egypt and Pakistan) which in the long-term are detrimental to US foreign policy aims. It's really well written and features interviews with all past (living) Secretaries of State.

    KetBra on
    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
  • ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    I should read that

  • KetBraKetBra Dressed Ridiculously Registered User regular
    It's very well written. Farrow has some sort of super-human ability to get interviews with people. Hell, he talked to Afghani VP Dostum, and asked him specifics about allegations of war crimes and mass executions carried out under him during the initial phase of direct American involvement in the Afghan War.

    KGMvDLc.jpg?1
  • ElldrenElldren Is a woman dammit ceterum censeoRegistered User regular
    Obviously Turkey's economy collapsing is by far worse, but if this leads to the cancellation of the F35, I'll take that as [small] consolation.

    Which it won't, I'm just dreaming.

    I wonder if F-35 pilots have bombs in their heads to prevent them from saying anything critical about their over-designed toaster of choice.

    Would make sense, the cockpit is the only place on the damn thing you could store enough bombs to carry out CAS missions

    fuck gendered marketing
  • KrieghundKrieghund Registered User regular
    The F-35s main problem is the Marine version, which screwed the other two versions. The A-10 works well for what it's doing now, which is basically just brush war CAS. An A-10 would not survive a modern battlefield.

  • Commander ZoomCommander Zoom Registered User regular
    Would anything, if Trump we made the mistake of actually picking a fair fight for the first time in decades?

  • KrieghundKrieghund Registered User regular
    Pretty much everything on par with us is already an ally. Russia is a shadow of the USSR and while China is up and coming, they aren't quite there yet. That isn't to say it would be a cake walk to go against either of them, but a straight up force on force conventional war would be fairly predictable. But the likelihood of that is rather small. No country is going to let its military get shredded if they have the means to stop it.

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Krieghund wrote: »
    Pretty much everything on par with us is already an ally. Russia is a shadow of the USSR and while China is up and coming, they aren't quite there yet. That isn't to say it would be a cake walk to go against either of them, but a straight up force on force conventional war would be fairly predictable. But the likelihood of that is rather small. No country is going to let its military get shredded if they have the means to stop it.
    Don't worry, Trump's on the case. He'll fix that.

    While I fully don't expect a shooting war with a global power (blowing up the Middle East or African nations), that it can't be ruled out that it'll be with a nation that has been an ally to the US for a half century plus, is just so fucked up. Not suggesting it will, but with Reagan through Obama, it wasn't something people could have imagined as anything but a fiction. With the current yahoo? I'm not so sure there couldn't be a Falklands type thing that happens that'd set off a military conflict.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    Krieghund wrote: »
    The F-35s main problem is the Marine version, which screwed the other two versions. The A-10 works well for what it's doing now, which is basically just brush war CAS. An A-10 would not survive a modern battlefield.

    That the 40+ year old A-10 is outdated is not really in contention. But to say that the 21st century, $1.5T F-35, which costs upwards of $100M per unit, can kinda sorta almost do the same job as the A-10 is not really a rhetorical victory.

    The whole point is that a 40+ year old aircraft shouldn't even be remotely comparable to its 21st century replacement. It should be exceeded in every single capacity, and it's not. Instead of developing multiple aircraft fit for multiple roles, keeping the Air Force agile and adaptable, the US has gone all in on the F-35, exchanging the logistical nightmare of many aircraft lines for the procurement nightmare of trying to have one aircraft do everything. People who argue that the F-35 can do everything that the A-10 can in CAS, assuming uncontested skies and omnipresent refueling (e.g. https://www.defensenews.com/2016/05/05/f-35-vs-a-10-air-force-test-pilot-weighs-in/) miss the point that nobody's suggesting the USAF replace their F-35s with A-10s. The argument is that the USAF would be better served with multiple craft for its multiple roles, with F-35s and whatever the A-10's replacement would be, the A-11 or whatever, flying in concert as strategy and tactics dictate, as opposed to having some F-35s fly air superiority to clear the air for other F-35s to fly CAS and all the KC-135s that would apparently be needed to enable the CAS F-35s to fulfill their role effectively.

    Plus, there are also tactical and logistical concerns about putting all your procurement eggs in a single basket. It may turn out that in an actual modern battlefield, the F-35 might not survive either, and then the USAF is shit outta luck, because Lockheed Martin is the only defense contractor with Gen V development experience, and all the other possible vendors are out of business now.

    On the day before entering WWII, the USAAF flew P-35s, P-38s, P-40s, P-47s, P-51s, and P-61s, amongst fighters alone. (Additionally, the USN flew many of their own models.) They were made by 6 different companies. Some of them performed well in combat. Some of them did not. Others found niche roles that they fulfilled admirably. This is the model that many A-10 advocates are actually looking for: rolling competitive development to drive innovation, multiple tools for multiple purposes, breadth of experience and expertise in the industry, and having alternatives available in case the battlefield of tomorrow doesn't look at all like the battlefield of yesterday. (I.e. USAAF planners found that the P-47 didn't have the range to escort their strategic bombers - which they had thought at the time wouldn't require escorts at all! - but did find that it was very effective as a fighter-bomber due to its sturdiness.)

    hippofant on
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    Part of the problem is that the US has so much money it can afford to carry all the ludicrous inefficiencies and corruption of defence spending, but it means that there's much less budgetary constraint and overview and the result is disasters like the F-35 program. Other countries don't have the problems of that program because other countries couldn't afford them.

    The UK is buying loads of them, incidentally, and not really carrying any of those horrific development costs

    Solar on
  • Katsuhiro 1139Katsuhiro 1139 Dublin, IrelandRegistered User regular
    I find it telling that I check on the US Foreign Policy thread, to stumble across an insightful conversation about the combat capabilities of the A-10 Warthog.

  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    The problem with the F35 is that the Marine Corps demanded it have VTOL ability. It is a capability of marginal utility in actual combat operations, but it imposed huge design limitations into the F35 project, damaging its range and carrying capacity. Even the Air force and Navy version are hampered by the USMC decision since they are stuck with the same airframe. What you end up with is a single airframe with 3 separate engines for each of the services.

    Honestly a 3 airframe design with the same engine and avionics would have been cheaper and better. the F-15 and the F-16 for example used the same engines for most of their careers and there was briefly talk of making the F-18 use a naval version.

    The F35 is great for US foreign policy though.

    Its a prime example of how the US combines soft, economic and hard power. To qualify for the F35 you have to be in the US good books, spreading US influence. Meanwhile the fact its still a fairly good plane results in far capable military allies. Then there is the fact that the F35 practically kneecaps all of the US competitors in the military jet market. Nobody is going to spend money on developing Stealth Fighters beyond a few symbolic examples(Japan) when they can just buy the F35 from the US. The Eurofighter, Rafale and Grippen are always going to be also rans in the world market(and as for Russian and Chinese designs... Ha). Leaving US manufacturers to corner the market, not just in airplanes, but engines and avionics. People talk about Lockheed, but both this generation and the next will have radars made by Raytheon.

    The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
  • [Tycho?][Tycho?] As elusive as doubt Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    Part of the problem is that the US has so much money it can afford to carry all the ludicrous inefficiencies and corruption of defence spending, but it means that there's much less budgetary constraint and overview and the result is disasters like the F-35 program. Other countries don't have the problems of that program because other countries couldn't afford them.

    The UK is buying loads of them, incidentally, and not really carrying any of those horrific development costs

    Ah, the military-industrial complex, working smoothly.

    mvaYcgc.jpg
  • KrieghundKrieghund Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Krieghund wrote: »
    The F-35s main problem is the Marine version, which screwed the other two versions. The A-10 works well for what it's doing now, which is basically just brush war CAS. An A-10 would not survive a modern battlefield.

    That the 40+ year old A-10 is outdated is not really in contention. But to say that the 21st century, $1.5T F-35, which costs upwards of $100M per unit, can kinda sorta almost do the same job as the A-10 is not really a rhetorical victory.

    The whole point is that a 40+ year old aircraft shouldn't even be remotely comparable to its 21st century replacement. It should be exceeded in every single capacity, and it's not. Instead of developing multiple aircraft fit for multiple roles, keeping the Air Force agile and adaptable, the US has gone all in on the F-35, exchanging the logistical nightmare of many aircraft lines for the procurement nightmare of trying to have one aircraft do everything. People who argue that the F-35 can do everything that the A-10 can in CAS, assuming uncontested skies and omnipresent refueling (e.g. https://www.defensenews.com/2016/05/05/f-35-vs-a-10-air-force-test-pilot-weighs-in/) miss the point that nobody's suggesting the USAF replace their F-35s with A-10s. The argument is that the USAF would be better served with multiple craft for its multiple roles, with F-35s and whatever the A-10's replacement would be, the A-11 or whatever, flying in concert as strategy and tactics dictate, as opposed to having some F-35s fly air superiority to clear the air for other F-35s to fly CAS and all the KC-135s that would apparently be needed to enable the CAS F-35s to fulfill their role effectively.

    Plus, there are also tactical and logistical concerns about putting all your procurement eggs in a single basket. It may turn out that in an actual modern battlefield, the F-35 might not survive either, and then the USAF is shit outta luck, because Lockheed Martin is the only defense contractor with Gen V development experience, and all the other possible vendors are out of business now.

    On the day before entering WWII, the USAAF flew P-35s, P-38s, P-40s, P-47s, P-51s, and P-61s, amongst fighters alone. (Additionally, the USN flew many of their own models.) They were made by 6 different companies. Some of them performed well in combat. Some of them did not. Others found niche roles that they fulfilled admirably. This is the model that many A-10 advocates are actually looking for: rolling competitive development to drive innovation, multiple tools for multiple purposes, breadth of experience and expertise in the industry, and having alternatives available in case the battlefield of tomorrow doesn't look at all like the battlefield of yesterday. (I.e. USAAF planners found that the P-47 didn't have the range to escort their strategic bombers - which they had thought at the time wouldn't require escorts at all! - but did find that it was very effective as a fighter-bomber due to its sturdiness.)

    The other point is that the A-10 can't compete with the F-35 in any way except as CAS in low intensity conflicts. And maybe the F-35 isn't the best answer to scrub war CAS, but when there is no dedicated CAS in pipeline, you make do with what you have. Have you seen what the Air Force is considering for what is actually going to replace the A-10? They are going back to propellers. Which honestly, would be adequate for Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention any south american adventure one would imagine.

  • kaidkaid Registered User regular
    Seal wrote: »
    The gun on the F-35 can kill the same range of targets as the A-10. The A-10's gun can't kill a modern MBT and neither can the F-35, but they can take out APC's and lighter armored vehicles. The A-10 had its time and that time ended in 91 when it had to be pulled from front line service because they kept getting shot down. Plus they're old enough that they now run the risk of the wings randomly falling off because of accumulated microfractures.

    But the A-10 can survive at low enough speeds to more accurately put fire onto onto those tanks AND has an assload more ordanance mounts on its wings than a f-35 can carry. I seriously question the endurance in the close air support role for the F-35 both from number and power of missiles carried and amount of ammunition for its gun.

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    I feel like we're deep into GST territory. Maybe argue about planes we're never going to fly in a war we will never fight in there?

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    Krieghund wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    Krieghund wrote: »
    The F-35s main problem is the Marine version, which screwed the other two versions. The A-10 works well for what it's doing now, which is basically just brush war CAS. An A-10 would not survive a modern battlefield.

    That the 40+ year old A-10 is outdated is not really in contention. But to say that the 21st century, $1.5T F-35, which costs upwards of $100M per unit, can kinda sorta almost do the same job as the A-10 is not really a rhetorical victory.

    The whole point is that a 40+ year old aircraft shouldn't even be remotely comparable to its 21st century replacement. It should be exceeded in every single capacity, and it's not. Instead of developing multiple aircraft fit for multiple roles, keeping the Air Force agile and adaptable, the US has gone all in on the F-35, exchanging the logistical nightmare of many aircraft lines for the procurement nightmare of trying to have one aircraft do everything. People who argue that the F-35 can do everything that the A-10 can in CAS, assuming uncontested skies and omnipresent refueling (e.g. https://www.defensenews.com/2016/05/05/f-35-vs-a-10-air-force-test-pilot-weighs-in/) miss the point that nobody's suggesting the USAF replace their F-35s with A-10s. The argument is that the USAF would be better served with multiple craft for its multiple roles, with F-35s and whatever the A-10's replacement would be, the A-11 or whatever, flying in concert as strategy and tactics dictate, as opposed to having some F-35s fly air superiority to clear the air for other F-35s to fly CAS and all the KC-135s that would apparently be needed to enable the CAS F-35s to fulfill their role effectively.

    Plus, there are also tactical and logistical concerns about putting all your procurement eggs in a single basket. It may turn out that in an actual modern battlefield, the F-35 might not survive either, and then the USAF is shit outta luck, because Lockheed Martin is the only defense contractor with Gen V development experience, and all the other possible vendors are out of business now.

    On the day before entering WWII, the USAAF flew P-35s, P-38s, P-40s, P-47s, P-51s, and P-61s, amongst fighters alone. (Additionally, the USN flew many of their own models.) They were made by 6 different companies. Some of them performed well in combat. Some of them did not. Others found niche roles that they fulfilled admirably. This is the model that many A-10 advocates are actually looking for: rolling competitive development to drive innovation, multiple tools for multiple purposes, breadth of experience and expertise in the industry, and having alternatives available in case the battlefield of tomorrow doesn't look at all like the battlefield of yesterday. (I.e. USAAF planners found that the P-47 didn't have the range to escort their strategic bombers - which they had thought at the time wouldn't require escorts at all! - but did find that it was very effective as a fighter-bomber due to its sturdiness.)

    The other point is that the A-10 can't compete with the F-35 in any way except as CAS in low intensity conflicts. And maybe the F-35 isn't the best answer to scrub war CAS, but when there is no dedicated CAS in pipeline, you make do with what you have. Have you seen what the Air Force is considering for what is actually going to replace the A-10? They are going back to propellers. Which honestly, would be adequate for Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention any south american adventure one would imagine.

    They're doing that because the US is only fighting in low intensity conflicts. The skies are clear, and the AA threats are from MANPADs, so the countermeasures are more about ECM than speed. Why throw a $1.5T supercomputer at a problem a calculator can solve? (Also, you can afford a great many calculators for $1.5T.)

    The OAX got scrubbed anyways.

    hippofant on
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor changed Registered User regular
    Fox News caught up with cold war enthusiast, and senior fellow for strategy and public diplomacy at the Center for the National Interest, (a Nixon-created think-tank for strategic realism) Christian Whitton, and managed to jot down an an op-ed about North Korea as dictated between bumps of cocaine.

    Apparently, what we need to do is reassign two Atlantic carrier groups to the region, resume nuclear testing, deploy ABM satellites, and build an "Iron Dome" style artillery defense system over Seoul that would make Israel just die from sheer jealousy. Then we start openly discussing how to redraw Korean borders post-regime change, and, to make sure Russia and China know we're not fucking around here, we stage mock joint-invasions of Taiwan with Japan and ROK to practice.

    That'll get those fuckers to stop helping them smuggle cigarettes.

    Finally: We hire insult comics to come up with more "little rocket man" burns about Kim Jong Un, and broadcast them at him.

    We can pay for all this by convincing Japan to double their defense spending, making ROK pay the entire cost of our presence there, and maybe close a few bases in Europe.

    Now, I am not familiar with the tenants of strategic realism, ( @NSDFRand ?) but that just sounds like playing chicken while actively soliciting more players to join the other side.

    South Korea could not be reached for comment at the time of this posting, (because I don't know their forum handle), but I'm not certain if they would be on board either, given that the only rails they seem focused on are of the freight-hauling variety, and they spent their Wednesday, instead, hammering out proposals for unified economic zones along the DMZ and linking up transportation networks with their neighbors.

  • MeeqeMeeqe Lord of the pants most fancy Someplace amazingRegistered User regular
    It would work or it would be WW3. If MAD ceases to be I foresee lots and lots more wars, if we can prove that we can fully neutralize a small nuclear armed country then the global power structure could be in for some major disruptions.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    No way china tolerates a build up of nuclear capable naval assets that close to it's shores.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    How would said defense system protect against North Korea's conventionally delivered WMDs? Say wut.

    Also, FOUR of the USN's ten fleet carriers are currently in maintenance cycles (Nimitz, Eisenhower?, Washington, Lincoln), partially as a result of prolonged deployment cycles in support of Iraq and Afghanistan. Lincoln is coming out of maintenance just about now, but Stennis and Vinson are all going in, leaving the USN at six? (if Eisenhower gets deployed) fleet carriers operational, which is still three less than, IIRC, the nine the USN projects as necessary for force projection. There are supposed to be 12 at all times, IIRC? Or maybe it was 11, but construction delays have plagued the Reagan class carriers. So yeah, sure, by all means, just reassigning carriers nilly-willy to confront North Korea makes a lot of sense.


    Also, yeah, sure, we'll just get JAPAN to cooperate in the defense of SOUTH KOREA and TAIWAN. It's not like JAPAN has had any unfortunate history with those two nations. Nope. I'm sure Koreans and Taiwanese will gladly welcome Japanese soldiers on their soil and in their waters. Yep. (Does this silly goose even know anything about East Asia? Can he find Taiwan on a map? Christ.)

    And the whole fucking plan is predicted on the idea that if the US just has enough military force in East Asia, that the Chinese will pressure the North Koreans to reform? Like... what iota of evidence has ever existed to demonstrate that would be the case? Like when the US was a stone's throw away from the Yalu? Or when they were embroiled in Vietnam? Since when has pissing off the Chinese ever made them more amenable to US demands?

    hippofant on
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    In the next few years, there is an idea that NATO pressure on US carrier resources will be lessened as the UK adds two carrier groups into the rotation.

  • Edith UpwardsEdith Upwards Registered User regular
    edited August 2018
    The CIA used the Chinese intranet to contact its agents.

    Our entire network in China has been rolled up, including traitors that have been cultivated since the Reds won the Civil War.

    This is a bigger blunder than sending the Japanese to deal with Mao.

    Edith Upwards on
  • NSDFRandNSDFRand FloridaRegistered User regular
    edited August 2018
    RE Strategic Realism: like other realist frameworks it assumes that all actors (states) are unitary rational (in this case this is really important) actors.

    In this frame work potential force is more important and more effective than actual military force. The state which works in this framework identifies what the other state in the conflict values and engages in brinkmanship directly aimed at that objective to coerce the target state to cooperate. There are risks: the other state may be an irrational actor (I don't really care for the rational/irrational label because many people seem to use rational/irrational to mean an action they agree with or disagree with without considering actual external influences on an actor, I also prefer to think from a constructivist framework because I think identity for an actor is important and I don't think of states as unitary actors), the other state may miscalculate etc.

    In order for the coercion to be successful, however, the state must be credible (the opposing state must believe you have the resolve to actually carry out coercive threats). Strategic Realism also works from a non-zero sum framework: there exists some equilibrium point in which both the coercing state and coerced state can have positive outcomes. And bargaining (including coercion with potential force, but also other methods, and maintaining communication is key to success here) is how both actors determine where that equilibrium point is.

    Schelling apparently thinks that in the nuclear age actual force carries much more risk than potentional force (threats) so Strategic Realism is supposed to be more effective at coercion without resorting directly to force.

    NSDFRand on
  • PhillisherePhillishere Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    In the next few years, there is an idea that NATO pressure on US carrier resources will be lessened as the UK adds two carrier groups into the rotation.

    I wouldn't make any bets that depending on the UK being financially stable enough to field a carrier force. Brexit is going to hit their economy like a Mack truck.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    NSDFRand wrote: »
    RE Strategic Realism: like other realist frameworks it assumes that all actors (states) are unitary rational (in this case this is really important) actors.

    In this frame work potential force is more important and more effective than actual military force. The state which works in this framework identifies what the other state in the conflict values and engages in brinkmanship directly aimed at that objective to coerce the target state to cooperate. There are risks: the other state may be an irrational actor (I don't really care for the rational/irrational label because many people seem to use rational/irrational to mean an action they agree with or disagree with without considering actual external influences on an actor, I also prefer to think from a constructivist framework because I think identity for an actor is important and I don't think of states as unitary actors), the other state may miscalculate etc.

    In order for the coercion to be successful, however, the state must be credible (the opposing state must believe you have the resolve to actually carry out coercive threats). Strategic Realism also works from a non-zero sum framework: there exists some equilibrium point in which both the coercing state and coerced state can have positive outcomes. And bargaining (including coercion with potential force, but also other methods, and maintaining communication is key to success here) is how both actors determine where that equilibrium point is.

    Schelling apparently thinks that in the nuclear age actual force carries much more risk than potentional force (threats) so Strategic Realism is supposed to be more effective at coercion without resorting directly to force.

    This completely fails to work since trump is president and he thinks being unpredictable on an international level is How to do foreign policy, is wasting time trying to pursue a "space force" and has maturity that ranges from that of a screaming child in the checkout line that's been denied a candy bar at the supermarket to a fratboy that's trying to fake credibility to the dean.

This discussion has been closed.