NEWS If War Comes, Will the U.S. Navy Be Prepared?

[AllAmerican75]

@nodropinufaka - no one has said it will necessarily be a CVN vs CVN style engagement, but to think that TACAIR won't be involved in a kinetic war with China would be foolish. How would you recommend we allocate resources if you're suggesting we take away prepping TACAIR in favor of... what? Cyber? Sure, that will be a part of it, but we have a pretty robust Cyber capability. Surface? Sure, the Navy is investing heavily in Surface Warfare again in terms of missile capabilites, although there is probably much to be desired in top line CG/DDG quantity.

If you're suggesting that any war with China will not be a full on kinetic conflict, that's entirely possible that we almost indefinitely remain in this "grey war" we're kind of in, simmering tensions, Chinese "fishing fleets" and seabed trawlers harrassing and taking resources that aren't theirs that other Navies are rightfully concerned about shooting civilians, then when there is any near-conlfict the Chinese Coast Guard comes in to save the day for their "civilians," small-medium scale cyber attacks, etc., that's entirely possible. But to think that aviation won't be required in any event they try to take Taiwan, the Spratlys, Japan, etc., is literally inconceivable to me. Please enlighten us or clarify your position.

Interesting shower thought: With the way the PLAN thinks about submarines and their belief that naval supremacy will emanate from their submarine fleet, are we handcuffing our hypothetical response to Chinese aggression by not having organic long range ASW aircraft like the S-3 in the air wing? It would seem that if we were serious about blue water operations against the PLAN we would want something with more legs than a -60R.

Taken as a whole, if this is the kind of analysis you offer your peers, then woe be to them. Any soothsayer can say….”but you never know,” but a genuine intellectual balances history, policy, economics, and geography to shape various scenarios. Right now, @nodropinufaka isn’t displaying those traits…indeed, quite the opposite. Statements like “with so much of our economy reliant on them (assuming China) are close to sophomoric.

As we exchange these messages the global economy is already moving beyond China. India is looking to bump them from their manufacturing pillar as the US is looking to other INDOPAC allies to pick up any trade imbalance. If you are thinking like a traditional communist, Xi has made a crucial mistake, he created a middle class and they will demand their stake in the economy - deny it and Xi will be chopped to tiny bits. The truth is, China is dependent on the rest of the free world to maintain their economy. This leads to other statements people have made. Any war with China will be “different.” At least for the next ten or fifteen years we can choke off China’s economy without ever facing the “hordes.” We can cut what parts of the “belt and road” system exists today but surely it will get harder as it progresses. Put simply, geography and economics do not favor China in most future war scenarios. Of course, that could change for any number of reasons, but few imaginable are going to be in the near term.

One last thing, the US will never start a war against China mostly because we don’t need to do so. If ever there is to be war, it will be because China starts one.

What if they don't start a war? I'm not sure China will be imperialistic in the way we think or are used to. They take a distinctly Chinese approach to problems such as their Sinocization of ethnic minorities like the Uyghurs in order to maintain internal control through a cohesive racial identity. I'm of the opinion that China is not going to use military power to establish global hegemony but will pursue economic means to do so. The thought is that China views their rise as a return to their place in the sun as THE global hegemon that controls global trade much like during the days of the silk road and spice trade. We can see them doing this as they try to be/are the pre-eminent manufacturer of nearly everything in the world. We saw during the pandemic how much control of our global supply chain we've given to China as they shut down and imposed shortages across the globe.

In a purely economic "war" I'm not sure where the Navy fits in nor do I see the Chinese likely to be overtly aggressive against us or our allies. Anyway, here's the video that lays my thought out quite well:

 

[Griz882]

Interesting shower thought: With the way the PLAN thinks about submarines and their belief that naval supremacy will emanate from their submarine fleet, are we handcuffing our hypothetical response to Chinese aggression by not having organic long range ASW aircraft like the S-3 in the air wing? It would seem that if we were serious about blue water operations against the PLAN we would want something with more legs than a -60R.



What if they don't start a war? I'm not sure China will be imperialistic in the way we think or are used to. They take a distinctly Chinese approach to problems such as their Sinocization of ethnic minorities like the Uyghurs in order to maintain internal control through a cohesive racial identity. I'm of the opinion that China is not going to use military power to establish global hegemony but will pursue economic means to do so. The thought is that China views their rise as a return to their place in the sun as THE global hegemon that controls global trade much like during the days of the silk road and spice trade. We can see them doing this as they try to be/are the pre-eminent manufacturer of nearly everything in the world. We saw during the pandemic how much control of our global supply chain we've given to China as they shut down and imposed shortages across the globe.

In a purely economic "war" I'm not sure where the Navy fits in nor do I see the Chinese likely to be overtly aggressive against us or our allies. Anyway, here's the video that lays my thought out quite well:

Now this, @AllAmerican75, is how you support an argument! I actually concur with much of what you say. While I disagree with your evaluation China’s economic strength, you make a solid argument otherwise. Still, China is cursed with two things she can not control - geography and globalism. I absolutely agree that China will use her economy to dominate long before that nation turns to war and I equally believe they will suffer a Korea-like fate…an economic war that can not be won fought along a financial “38th parallel.”

If that happens China’s worse enemy won’t be the economic “might” of the US but the internal insecurity of China’s own middle class.

 

[picklesuit]

Why is that? We didn’t win. So we lost. It’s pretty simple really.

We left Afghanistan and now Taliban has control of it. The very thing we set out to stop 20 years ago.

We left Vietnam. North Vietnam took over south Vietnam. We failed to stop their advances and prevent it. Which was the goal.

Do you think ISIS in iraq just disappeared? It’s widely viewed that they are just waiting us out again. Just like they did the first time from 2007-2012 and as soon as they could they went and took back Iraq. It’s hard to argue we actually won Iraq.

How is stating facts immature?

You might want to reread the AUMF and understand why we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Somalia, Yemen, Syria, and the Philippines)…hint: it wasn’t just the Taliban…they are merely one part of the adversary network we had to combat to remove the threat of EXOPS capable terrorist networks. But that’s probably a little deeper than you are willing to understand.

The days of us signing a treaty on the quarterdeck of the Missouri are over, and progress is no longer defined by “Mission Accomplished” banners, it’s defined by reducing a threat to our people/property/things to an acceptable level.

We did that.

Errors were definitely made along the way (dismantling the Iraqi army, creating a power vacuum in Iraq and letting Daesh sweep through, deprioritizing Afghanistan to fight Iraq, thinking the Afghan people view their geographical nation like the Brits drew it up vice a collection of tribes, repeatedly bailing on the Kurds) but as a whole, we have prevented the large-scale terrorist attack in our soil, and pushed the enemy back as far as we feasibly could, given the global and American appetite for destruction and violence.

Three deployments to the AOR, 2010, 2012, 2015/16, I watched the different stages happen, and am completely proud and satisfied with my service there, even as we leave Afghanistan. There was/is no good way to extricate from a war that isn’t a total war with a complete surrender (we haven’t extricated from any of those yet, either, as evidenced by our sweet bases in the former Axis power countries).

Your lack of depth of understanding of the subject shows, it’s not as black and white as “won or lost”.

Pickle

https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/pres-aumf.pdf

 

[nodropinufaka]

There's a difference between doing your job by giving political leadership their military options and personally believing that the USA is going to go to war with China.

Apparently you need to blindly follow and get in line or you’re wrong.

If you say we lose wars (which we have a losing record since Korea) then you’re labeled unintelligent and immature.

You might want to reread the AUMF and understand why we went to war in Afghanistan and Iraq (and Somalia, Yemen, Syria, and the Philippines)…hint: it wasn’t just the Taliban…they are merely one part of the adversary network we had to combat to remove the threat of EXOPS capable terrorist networks. But that’s probably a little deeper than you are willing to understand.

The days of us signing a treaty on the quarterdeck of the Missouri are over, and progress is no longer defined by “Mission Accomplished” banners, it’s defined by reducing a threat to our people/property/things to an acceptable level.

We did that.

Errors were definitely made along the way (dismantling the Iraqi army, creating a power vacuum in Iraq and letting Daesh sweep through, deprioritizing Afghanistan to fight Iraq, thinking the Afghan people view their geographical nation like the Brits drew it up vice a collection of tribes, repeatedly bailing on the Kurds) but as a whole, we have prevented the large-scale terrorist attack in our soil, and pushed the enemy back as far as we feasibly could, given the global and American appetite for destruction and violence.

Three deployments to the AOR, 2010, 2012, 2015/16, I watched the different stages happen, and am completely proud and satisfied with my service there, even as we leave Afghanistan. There was/is no good way to extricate from a war that isn’t a total war with a complete surrender (we haven’t extricated from any of those yet, either, as evidenced by our sweet bases in the former Axis power countries).

Your lack of depth of understanding of the subject shows, it’s not as black and white as “won or lost”.

Pickle

https://www.congress.gov/107/plaws/publ40/PLAW-107publ40.pdf

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/pres-aumf.pdf

I’m well aware of why we went and what the plan was.

And at least in Iraq we didn’t find the WMDs like we claimed were there. That was an intelligence failure and a case of the leadership seeing what they wanted to see in their assessments. Then we fumbled even worst once we got into Iraq and claimed “Mission Accomplished”

In Afghanistan we spent 20 years there and then picked up and left and essentially gave it back to the Taliban. And since the Taliban allowed Al Qaeda to operate freely in Afghanistan- no doubt they’ll be pouring back into the country and starting over.

I don’t know why people get so upset at saying we lost.

It doesn’t take away or diminish anyone’s service there.

Just curious- by what metric would you say we won Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[Spekkio]

but as a whole, we have prevented the large-scale terrorist attack in our soil,

Dude, a large-scale repeat of 9/11 was prevented by installing locked doors to the cockpits of commercial aircraft and installing airport security. It's also prevented by having a normal, functional society based on the rule of law. Everything we did in Iraq and Afghanistan was focused on revenge.

Terrorism is a police and domestic security problem.

 

[FrankTheTank]

Why be a dick?

Truth hurts….Because it should!

 

[FrankTheTank]

I actually know @nodropinufaka in real life. He's no troll. He is in fact a former active duty Intel Officer, former corpsman, and does work for a research think tank at a university.

His views are different from most of the Wardroom but no need to be a dick because you disagree.

Um ok…. If you say so….

 

[Hotdogs]

I actually know @nodropinufaka in real life. He's no troll. He is in fact a former active duty Intel Officer, former corpsman, and does work for a research think tank at a university.

His views are different from most of the Wardroom but no need to be a dick because you disagree.

The dude is a clown ?.

He speaks as if the large audience here doesn’t read or understand GOFO staffs, OPLANS, and basic socio-economic underpinnings of the global economy. Fuck, he’s basically trying to insinuate to actual TACAIR pilots on this site, that they won’t have a huge play against the PLAN or PLAAF. Not sure if it’s hubris or naivety, but it’s pretty dumb. I’m sure the wardroom loved him, but I can guess it wasn’t just because “his views are different…” It’s probably because he was a raging douche rocket who routinely stepped on his own crank.

No one has a problem with disagreement, but articulating an argument with factual and commonly accepted evidence is a basic foundation of debate and discourse.

 

[nodropinufaka]

The dude is a clown ?.

He speaks as if the large audience here doesn’t read or understand GOFO staffs, OPLANS, and basic socio-economic underpinnings of the global economy. Fuck, he’s basically trying to insinuate to actual TACAIR pilots on this site, that they won’t have a huge play against the PLAN or PLAAF. Not sure if it’s hubris or naivety, but it’s pretty dumb. I’m sure the wardroom loved him, but I can guess it wasn’t just because “his views are different…” It’s probably because he was a raging douche rocket who routinely stepped on his own crank.

No one has a problem with disagreement, but articulating an argument with factual and commonly accepted evidence is a basic foundation of debate and discourse.

I didn’t say any of that.

I said we have no idea how the next conflict plays out.

 

[bleusnake]

Know the last time we went to war with our biggest trading partner? 1775, and look how that turned out ?.

 

[DanMa1156]

Know the last time we went to war with our biggest trading partner? 1775, and look how that turned out ?.

Was Britain not in 1812? Not trying to be overly snarky.

 

[Brett327]

I said we have no idea how the next conflict plays out.

This statement, in and of itself, is without meaning. It is of zero value to anyone planning for a conflict, or making decisions on requirements for capabilities, force structure, or global force management. The fact that you continue to repeat it, like some kind of semantic foil, is a bit silly. It is an unserious response from an unserious person.

 

[nodropinufaka]

This statement, in and of itself, is without meaning. It is of zero value to anyone planning for a conflict, or making decisions on requirements for capabilities, force structure, or global force management. The fact that you continue to repeat it, like some kind of semantic foil, is a bit silly. It is an unserious response from an unserious person.

I disagree. It’s extremely important to State Department and security cooperation planners trying to counter Chinas malign influence.

You’re looking at the conflict as 1 and 0s only through the DOD lense.

 

[picklesuit]

I disagree. It’s extremely important to State Department and security cooperation planners trying to counter Chinas malign influence.

You’re looking at the conflict as 1 and 0s only through the DOD lense.

That’s not how we plan, and if you did any serious work on any Combatant or Component Commander’s staff you know that.

You are being obtuse for the sake of obtusity. As much as I disagree with Brett on some aspects of his views on the Navy, I will take his experience at his level, that of the multiple people here who’ve served on multiple staffs, and that I’ve seen myself over your JO Intel-O view.

You may have had access to the documents, you didn’t have access to the leaders and their decision making process.

The planning absolutely takes into account the OAI’s of the IA, IC, and DOS enterprises when we try to influence a malign actor with the totality of layered effects.

Your viewpoint has been blatantly myopic, whatever credibility you MAY have had at the beginning of the two threads in which you have so thoroughly shown your ass has been completely lost.

As an aside, put some effort into proofreading what you write (here and at work) your efforts thus far are substandard and distracting to your argument.

 

[nodropinufaka]

That’s not how we plan, and if you did any serious work on any Combatant or Component Commander’s staff you know that.

You are being obtuse for the sake of obtusity. As much as I disagree with Brett on some aspects of his views on the Navy, I will take his experience at his level, that of the multiple people here who’ve served on multiple staffs, and that I’ve seen myself over your JO Intel-O view.

You may have had access to the documents, you didn’t have access to the leaders and their decision making process.

The planning absolutely takes into account the OAI’s of the IA, IC, and DOS enterprises when we try to influence a malign actor with the totality of layered effects.

Your viewpoint has been blatantly myopic, whatever credibility you MAY have had at the beginning of the two threads in which you have so thoroughly shown your ass has been completely lost.

As an aside, put some effort into proofreading what you write (here and at work) your efforts thus far are substandard and distracting to your argument.

Have you worked in an embassy staff?