World War III Updates

[HeloDude]

14 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Unless you're about 75 years old, I would say your confidence is not historically supported. But I do sincerely hope you're right

I’m old enough to remember the Cold War…yep, never had combat troops in the USSR and the Soviet Union never physically attacked the US.  I do think it’s funny when people compare the US of today to 1941…seems more different in a lot of ways than not.

[FLEA]

16 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Unless you're about 75 years old, I would say your confidence is not historically supported. But I do sincerely hope you're right

Chinese on US soil? Eh.... very low probability.

US on Chinese soil? Much higher probability but still unlikely. Historically nuclear deterrence wasn't a factor in great state power competition. 

[Lord Ratner]

35 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Chinese on US soil? Eh.... very low probability.

US on Chinese soil? Much higher probability but still unlikely. Historically nuclear deterrence wasn't a factor in great state power competition. 

Agreed, I don't think they'd come to us. Nuclear is definitely a "new" dynamic.

[Lord Ratner]

38 minutes ago, HeloDude said:

I’m old enough to remember the Cold War…yep, never had combat troops in the USSR and the Soviet Union never physically attacked the US.  I do think it’s funny when people compare the US of today to 1941…seems more different in a lot of ways than not.

Do you think we were at war with the Vietnamese during Vietnam? Or to a lesser extent, North Korea in the Korean war? We definitely fought their militaries, but if say there's a pretty good argument to be made that we were really fighting the Chinese and Soviets in those wars. They were definitely fuzzy. It's also notable that Hawaii was an overseas base attacked by the Japanese, not a state, so I wouldn't be surprised if the very-isolationist faction of the government was making the same type of arguments.

 

I don't think people change as much as we wish they did. And I didn't think we solved the social impulse to war after WWII. But I do hope I'm wrong.

[HeloDude]

4 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

It's also notable that Hawaii was an overseas base attacked by the Japanese, not a state, so I wouldn't be surprised if the very-isolationist faction of the government was making the same type of arguments.

Hawaii at the time was a US territory, most definitely part of the US.  It would be the same today if China attacked Guam.  Which I don’t see happening in my lifetime.

[Danger41]

If it comes down to fighting their military like Vietnam and an actual war against the Chinese state, I hope it is a straight up war. Reason being is in a real war against the nation of China, we park our navy in some strategic straits and use the AF to help massacre their merchant fleets. Give it 9 months to a year of that and China ceases to exist due to their reliance on imports. We decide to muck around in the SCS and the island chains by fighting militaries, that will end horribly for all parties and not make a lasting difference (in my opinion).

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Danger41 said:

If it comes down to fighting their military like Vietnam and an actual war against the Chinese state, I hope it is a straight up war. Reason being is in a real war against the nation of China, we park our navy in some strategic straits and use the AF to help massacre their merchant fleets. Give it 9 months to a year of that and China ceases to exist due to their reliance on imports. We decide to muck around in the SCS and the island chains by fighting militaries, that will end horribly for all parties and not make a lasting difference (in my opinion).

Ah.... yeah.... massacre civilian targets, that sounds like a great strategy. Unless you can prove those merchant ships are supporting their capacity to make war you can't just blow them up with air power. You can blockade them and perform seizure but you aren't going to blockade 9000 nm of coastline with our Navy alone. 

[Danger41]

1 hour ago, FLEA said:

Ah.... yeah.... massacre civilian targets, that sounds like a great strategy. Unless you can prove those merchant ships are supporting their capacity to make war you can't just blow them up with air power. You can blockade them and perform seizure but you aren't going to blockade 9000 nm of coastline with our Navy alone. 

In a declared war those are absolutely legitimate targets. Hell, the Submarines alone in the Pacific theater shut down over 50% of Japanese shipping, which the Diet referred to as the biggest reason they lost the war (https://web.archive.org/web/20080409052122/https://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.html). 
 

And you absolutely don’t need to blockade the whole coastline. Focus on areas like the Straits of Malacca and watch those oil stores on the mainland tick down. See how the cultural elites in Shanghai and Hong Kong like that after a couple months. 

[FLEA]

48 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

In a declared war those are absolutely legitimate targets. Hell, the Submarines alone in the Pacific theater shut down over 50% of Japanese shipping, which the Diet referred to as the biggest reason they lost the war (https://web.archive.org/web/20080409052122/https://www.navy.mil/navydata/cno/n87/history/wwii-campaigns.html). 
 

And you absolutely don’t need to blockade the whole coastline. Focus on areas like the Straits of Malacca and watch those oil stores on the mainland tick down. See how the cultural elites in Shanghai and Hong Kong like that after a couple months. 

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/560-13?OpenDocument

A lot has changed in international law since WW2. WW2 was pre-Geneva even and the article 4 concepts of distinction had not been designed yet. 

 

[dream big]

15 hours ago, FLEA said:

What's your solution to solving the massive logistical hurdle needed for us to mass forces in the Pacific with very few land holdings and little support from host countries to provide infrastructure for offensive operations? 

ACE! Duh! 

[tac airlifter]

5 hours ago, FLEA said:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/560-13?OpenDocument

A lot has changed in international law since WW2. WW2 was pre-Geneva even and the article 4 concepts of distinction had not been designed yet. 

7 hours ago, FLEA said:

Ah.... yeah.... massacre civilian targets, that sounds like a great strategy. Unless you can prove those merchant ships are supporting their capacity to make war you can't just blow them up with air power. 

Flea, your concerns and logic are why the USA no longer wins wars.

If we want to win, we must stop thinking about what we can’t do and stop pitting our lawyers against our tacticians.  

[FLEA]

4 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Flea, your concerns and logic are why the USA no longer wins wars.

If we want to win, we must stop thinking about what we can’t do and stop pitting our lawyers against our tacticians.  

I'm never going to advocate targeting civilians. The moral case on that has been established for decades. You can hate that if you want but it doesn't bother me in the slightest. No point in winning a war if doing so only upholds an immoral state. War is fought to preserve culture and values and if our culture and values support the massacre of innocents in the name of convenience then perhaps we deserve to be wiped out. But I don't think that's the case. 

Hope none of y'all are in the Ukraine thread bitching about apartment buildings being targeted and such..... Cause you know that would be a bad look. 

 

Edited November 13, 2022 by FLEA

[Danger41]

10 hours ago, FLEA said:

https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/ART/560-13?OpenDocument

A lot has changed in international law since WW2. WW2 was pre-Geneva even and the article 4 concepts of distinction had not been designed yet. 

 

Referencing that document proves my point that merchant vessels can be valid targets if they meet the rules (Paragraph 41). Skipping over the arguments that we could have from paragraph 46 and going to the meat and potatoes of Paragraph 60, specifically section (g) but just for good measure in my Malacca scenario (e). In a true wartime scenario, we shut the straits down and say anyone coming to point x will be stopped and inspected and if they don’t, they’ll be attacked (e). If we know they are providing war materiel to China, they’re already legitimate targets (g). 
 

I hope I didn’t come across as not just schwacking any Chinese civilian vessel or civilians in general because I don’t agree with that. But when a country is as dependent on imports as they are, we’d be idiotic to not attack that in a true war. 
 

Regarding your comments about never targeting civilians, how do you feel about attacking critical infrastructure? Basically strategic attack? That will have a massive impact on a civilian populace. For history’s sake, how did you feel about the Christmas bombings and the mining of Haiphong harbor? 

[FLEA]

2 minutes ago, Danger41 said:

Referencing that document proves my point that merchant vessels can be valid targets if they meet the rules (Paragraph 41). Skipping over the arguments that we could have from paragraph 46 and going to the meat and potatoes of Paragraph 60, specifically section (g) but just for good measure in my Malacca scenario (e). In a true wartime scenario, we shut the straits down and say anyone coming to point x will be stopped and inspected and if they don’t, they’ll be attacked (e). If we know they are providing war materiel to China, they’re already legitimate targets (g). 
 

I hope I didn’t come across as not just schwacking any Chinese civilian vessel or civilians in general because I don’t agree with that. But when a country is as dependent on imports as they are, we’d be idiotic to not attack that in a true war. 
 

Regarding your comments about never targeting civilians, how do you feel about attacking critical infrastructure? Basically strategic attack? That will have a massive impact on a civilian populace. For history’s sake, how did you feel about the Christmas bombings and the mining of Haiphong harbor? 

You did come across as schwacking any and all vessels which is why I got a bit defensive. I agree that targeting merchant marine vessels is legal under certain stipulations, mainly the same doctrine of distinction applicable to targeting law elsewhere. 

To your second part, necessity and proportionality. These are concepts that are well defined. Anytime I strike a civilian structure, I should be able to 1.) clearly articulate why destroying that structure provided a concrete military benefit by either denying, degrading, or disrupting part of the enemy war machine and 2.) demonstrate that I could not create a similar effect in any other manner that did not involve civilian casualties. If I can do both those--then need to show that the associated effect was so valuable that the overall benefit of destroying the target outweighed the harm I brought to civilians in doing so.

The last 20 years has really contorted our scale and perspective of warfare, destruction and targeting. Its one of the reasons Im hesitant to jump into a shooting match with Russia or China until we've had a decade or so to recalibrate our expectations for success and for casualty. The vast majority of Americans are going to be horrified to see what the cost will be to help hold Taiwan. The political reaction to that could be so knee jerk and violent that it withdrawals the American populace from its global position. 

[FourFans]

None of the above will ever happen unless we have leadership with the balls to do it, and a national will that what's them to.

Edited November 13, 2022 by FourFans130

[gearhog]

4 hours ago, Danger41 said:

Referencing that document proves my point that merchant vessels can be valid targets if they meet the rules (Paragraph 41).

If this war mobilization meeting in China's Guangdong province is to be believed, they intend to expropriate all civilian resources for the move on Taiwan. It's gonna be a shitshow.

"..., to participate in the South China Sea interoperability, the mobilization of professional repair forces and air and sea transport forces to assist the troops to repair and set towers and markers, and the organization of militia fishing boats to respond to the infringement of the Vietnam, Philippines and Malaysia and other countries, to fight well the people's war at sea."

"...2) Maritime support mobilization, including roll-on/roll-off vessels ships, fishing vessels, salvage vessels, multi-purpose vessels and other types of vessels. They will mainly come from mobilization in the provincial industry system and fourteen coastal cities."

"...But from the layout perspective, high-quality shipbuilding and retrofitting resources concentrate in Guangzhou, Yangjiang, Dongguan, and other places. The capability in east Guangdong is weak!

 We have taken three approaches to tackle this.

First, we bring together the excellent forces, utilize the province's large ship repair yards, and organize over 1,000-ton transport ships. We centrally manage them according to their categories.

Second, multi-point deployment. We choose 23 docks from coastal cities to rapidly retrofit motorized fishing boats."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUDKWh0QQn0&t=128s

[tac airlifter]

20 hours ago, FLEA said:

I'm never going to advocate targeting civilians. The moral case on that has been established for decades. You can hate that if you want but it doesn't bother me in the slightest. No point in winning a war if doing so only upholds an immoral state. War is fought to preserve culture and values and if our culture and values support the massacre of innocents in the name of convenience then perhaps we deserve to be wiped out. But I don't think that's the case. 

Hope none of y'all are in the Ukraine thread bitching about apartment buildings being targeted and such..... Cause you know that would be a bad look. 

 

This conversation proved my point: you immediately jumped to conclusions with the rules and laws why it cannot be done before even understanding the proposal. Turns out your assumptions were false and his point was 100% valid.

I have seen that microcosm of interaction play out many times over the past 20 years of GWOT, which we lost, because we real time litigated every engagement in a fools errand of “near certainty.”  How different might the outcome had been had we violently seized the initiative and exploited every target of opportunity with lower standards for perfection in an inherently, messy business? We will never know because lawyers shut it down, prolonged the conflict, and claimed a moral high ground for doing so.

We are not a nation of barbarians who revel in innocent bloodshed (unlike many of our enemies), so don’t start by assuming the worst.  However, academic definitions of “wartime atrocities” developed over coffee in Brussels have handcuffed us beyond the ability to win against true barbarians.  “It doesn’t bother you in the slightest” to see it differently, a luxury provided you by tacticians who took moral risk to attain victory.  

[ecugringo]

On 11/12/2022 at 6:46 PM, FLEA said:

Chinese on US soil? Eh.... very low probability.

US on Chinese soil? Much higher probability but still unlikely. Historically nuclear deterrence wasn't a factor in great state power competition. 

Interesting topic but yeah China on US soil would be an interesting strategy plan for logistics.  Secure Costcos for resupply?  Not sure how they could resupply food/equipment across the Pacific.  The US at least has Korea and Japan to work from.

[FourFans]

16 minutes ago, ecugringo said:

Interesting topic but yeah China on US soil would be an interesting strategy plan for logistics.  Secure Costcos for resupply?  Not sure how they could resupply food/equipment across the Pacific.  The US at least has Korea and Japan to work from.

The chinese way of war is to source as you go...old school foraging.  So yeah, the Costco strategy would actually be in their playbook...possibly in that exact form.

[M1873gg]

3 hours ago, ecugringo said:

Interesting topic but yeah China on US soil would be an interesting strategy plan for logistics.  Secure Costcos for resupply?  Not sure how they could resupply food/equipment across the Pacific.  The US at least has Korea and Japan to work from.

Probably see a lot of that regarding food and basic supplies. Given the fact that we can’t keep the cartel out of the US, I wouldn’t be surprised if Gina already had warehouses in various spots around the US. Fill them to the brim with domestically acquired ammo, guns, fuel, etc.

all speculation ofcourse. I’d like to have more faith in our homeland security.

[Prozac]

2 hours ago, M1873gg said:

Probably see a lot of that regarding food and basic supplies. Given the fact that we can’t keep the cartel out of the US, I wouldn’t be surprised if Gina already had warehouses in various spots around the US. Fill them to the brim with domestically acquired ammo, guns, fuel, etc.

all speculation ofcourse. I’d like to have more faith in our homeland security.

The idea of a Chinese invasion of North America is a pretty epic leap for a country that can’t currently sail its navy more than a few hundred miles from its home shores. I don’t think we need to worry about putting AAA emplacements on top of the local big box store any time soon. Some of you guys have some big imaginations…

[SuperWSO]

On 11/12/2022 at 6:36 PM, HeloDude said:

Hawaii at the time was a US territory, most definitely part of the US.  It would be the same today if China attacked Guam.  Which I don’t see happening in my lifetime.

Seriously? I don’t see them landing troops, but lobbing SRBMs at military facilities? That will be night 1 of China-Taiwan. China is going to try and lay waste to any fixed US military facilities in that region. Chinas demographic decline and the relative unreadiness of US forces will be seen as a closing window of opportunity. The only question is if Russias experience in Ukraine gives them any pause.

[HeloDude]

8 hours ago, Prozac said:

The idea of a Chinese invasion of North America is a pretty epic leap for a country that can’t currently sail its navy more than a few hundred miles from its home shores. I don’t think we need to worry about putting AAA emplacements on top of the local big box store any time soon. Some of you guys have some big imaginations…

It’s not too often that Prozac and I agree on things, so when it happens, it’s worth mentioning.  

[gearhog]

If we are on a path to a wider conflict, this is likely a significant step in that direction.

One of Russia's primary strategic nuclear bomber bases was struck today. Wonder how they will respond?

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/three-killed-fuel-tanker-explosion-russian-airfield-2022-12-05/

Moscow says three killed in Ukrainian drone attacks on air bases deep inside Russia

By Mark Trevelyan

LONDON, Dec 5 (Reuters) - Russia said on Monday that three of its military personnel were killed in what it said were Ukrainian drone attacks on two Russian air bases hundreds of miles from the front lines in Ukraine.

Ukraine did not directly claim responsibility. If it did carry out the attacks, they were the deepest military strikes it has conducted inside the Russian heartland since Moscow invaded on Feb. 24.

One of the targets, the Engels air base near the city of Saratov, houses bomber planes that are part of Russia's strategic nuclear forces.

 

Edited December 5, 2022 by torqued

[Smokin]

Maybe they'll declare war on Ukraine?  I don't understand the thought process that Ukraine somehow should have their hands tied about what targets they can strike.  I get that the rest of the world doesn't want to the war to bring other countries in, but Russia invaded and all of Russia's targets have been in Ukraine.  Why should Ukraine be held back from striking Russia?

With how much Russia is struggling against Ukraine, I don't imagine Putin wants the war to widen either. 

The interesting thing to think about if these are drone strikes; does Ukraine now have drones capable of reaching that long range of a target or are there Ukrainian SOF units inside Russia?