Showing posts with label US military strategy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US military strategy. Show all posts

Monday, April 16, 2018

W. J. Astore — Technology Substitutes for Strategy in U.S. Military Operations

Technology shapes thought even as it becomes a substitute for it. It amazes me, for example, how the U.S. military threw technology at the “problem” of Vietnam in an attempt to “win” that war. Everything short of nuclear weapons was unleashed on Southeast Asia, yet those brave people refused to surrender. U.S. Presidents from Kennedy to Nixon were always sending messages through airpower and other forms of destructive technology, but the Vietnamese couldn’t have cared less about those “messages.” They had one goal: expel the invader, unify the country, and they stuck to it despite all the high explosive, napalm, defoliants, electronic fences, and everything else inflicted upon them.
Americans tend to see technology as a panacea. Even deadly technology. So, for example, what’s the proposed solution to gun violence in the USA? According to the NRA and our president, it’s more guns. What’s the solution to violence in Syria? According to the military and our president, it’s more bombs and missiles. One clear winner emerges here: those who produce the guns, bombs, and missiles.
Tomahawks and drones and similar weapons are all about action at a distance. They incur no risk of harm to U.S. troops. As a result, America’s leaders use them liberally to send “signals” and to add to the body count. They strike because they can and because it’s relatively easy. Action serves as a substitute for thought. The only strategy is to keep blowing things up.
The U.S. strategy, such as it is, is defined and driven by Tomahawks and drones and related weaponry. These weapons make possible “global reach, global power,” but they do not facilitate global thinking. Promising decision or at least quick results, they lead only to more bodies and deeper quagmires.
The U.S. keeps getting bogged down in wars in part because of the faith the government places in technology. So much is invested in military weaponry that it becomes a substitute for thought.…
The lazy man's guide to war fighting.

Bracing Views
Technology Substitutes for Strategy in U.S. Military Operations
W. J. Astore, Lt. Col. ret. (USAF)

Saturday, January 13, 2018

Robert Farley — By 2020, China Could Have Hypersonic Missiles to Sink U.S. Aircraft Carriers

The United States can strike back with its own systems, of course,but on balance the U.S. military demands access, while the Chinese military wins by denying that access.
Please notice that Chinese strategy is based on defense (denial of access) rather than offense (access). So is Russia's and also Iran's.

The Chinese "threat" to the US is chiefly economic, and one the present trajectory, China surpasses the US economy in the next decade in output owing to its sheer size, even the US standard of living will exceed that of China for some time.

But standard of living doesn't add substantially to power, while output does.

The National Interest
By 2020, China Could Have Hypersonic Missiles to Sink U.S. Aircraft Carriers
Robert Farley | senior lecturer at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky

Saturday, April 16, 2016

Alexandr Bovdunov — Ralph Peters: the concept of constant conflict


This is an interesting post based on short article by Ralph Peters, Constant Conflict, Parameters, Summer 1997, pp. 4-14: US Army War College. Lt. Col. Peters has written a number of books and was a contributor at Fox News until recently when he was let go for calling President Obama "a total pussy" on air. His most recent books, a compilation of articles, is Lines of Fire: A Renegade Writes on Strategy, Intelligence, and Security. Stackpole Books, 2016.

Katehon
Ralph Peters: the concept of constant conflict
Alexandr Bovdunov