The Military/War Thread

Learned something new today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emory_Upton

Upton is considered one of the most influential young reformers of the United States Army in the 19th century,[11] arguably in U.S. history. He has been called the U.S. Army's counterpart to United States Navy reformer and strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan. Although his books on tactics and on Asian and European armies were considered influential, his greatest impact was a work he called The Military Policy of the United States from 1775. He worked for years on the paper, but it was incomplete at the time of his death in 1881.[13]

Military Policy was a controversial work in which Upton outlined U.S. military history and argued that the armed forces were imprudent and weak and "that all the defects of the American military system rested upon a fundamental, underlying flaw, excessive civilian control of the military." He denigrated the influence of the Secretary of War and promoted the idea that all military decisions in the field should be made by professional officers, although the president should retain the role of commander-in-chief. He argued for a strong, standing regular army that would be supplemented by volunteers or conscripts in time of war, a general staff system based on the Prussian model, examinations to determine promotions, compulsory retirement of officers who reach a certain age, advanced military education, and combat maneuvering by groups of four three-battalion infantry regiments. Upton's work had a profound influence on discussions of military and civilian strategy for years.[5][11]

After Upton's death, Henry A. DuPont, Upton's West Point classmate and a close friend, acquired a copy of the uncompleted manuscript. It circulated widely throughout the Army's officer corps and helped to foment much discussion. After the Spanish–American War, Secretary of War Elihu Root read the manuscript and ordered that the War Department publish it under the title The Military Policy of the United States. Many of the Army's so-called Root Reforms of the early twentieth century were inspired by Upton and his works.[14]

Also CHOYNA has its first domestically produced aircraft carrier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CiG
https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2018/1/23/strategy-ethics-and-trust-issues

This reaction to the development of a new means of war is illustrative of the type of concerns that must be addressed if the military organisations are to adopt far ranging plans for human machine integration. Each military organisation, regardless of nation or service, will approach the challenges of human-machine teaming differently. Variations in military culture, national strategy, and societal expectations will ensure a multitude of solutions are derived from different military institutions. This variety of institutional strategies developed for human-machine teaming is a good thing. It will provide for sharing of lessons and cross-pollination of best practices – at least among Western military organisations. The central issue, however, is that military organisations must each possess realistic strategies that address the challenges described in this article if they are to successfully exploit the future of human-machine teaming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zabu of nΩd
https://thestrategybridge.org/the-b...itical-communities-owe-their-military-members

People are willing to give up some of their freedom to form political communities and make their rights more secure than they would be in a state of nature. This means one of the political community’s purposes is to secure its members’ rights, and members of the military are members of this community. Because of the risks associated with military service and the needs of a functioning military, military members are not able to fully enjoy the rights other members of the political community enjoy. This is, along with the military’s role in defending political communities, why political communities have special obligations towards their military members. These special obligations include effective training, good equipment, subsistence, and the ability to enjoy the full benefits of the political community once their military service is over. The specifics of these special obligations should be discussed by the political community and should account for changing conditions.
 
Interesting article, but when it comes to what war will look like when "men and machines merge", I don't see how you can leave out concerns over mind control.

I know mind control has a long history of bunk conspiracy theories / unsubstantiated fears because drugs are often the center of discussion, and the effects of drugs are just too random to make them a "perfect" weapon - but I think brain interfaces are gonna open a Pandora's box of 1984 style shit.

We've already got rudimentary thought identification with MRI machines. Apparently we can give mice "light-activated neurons" too, and program false memories into them:

Inception of a false memory by optogenetic manipulation of a hippocampal memory engram
Here, we first identified a population of cells in the dentate gyrus (DG) of the hippocampus that bear the engrams for a specific context; these cells were naturally activated during the encoding phase of fear conditioning and their artificial reactivation using optogenetics in an unrelated context was sufficient for inducing the fear memory specific to the conditioned context. In a further study, DG or CA1 neurons activated by exposure to a particular context were labelled with channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2). These neurons were later optically reactivated during fear conditioning in a different context. The DG experimental group showed increased freezing in the original context in which a foot shock was never delivered.
 
Last edited:
https://warontherocks.com/2018/07/t...ssons-from-a-failed-grand-strategic-exercise/

The pre-1965 orthodox interpretation of appeasement held that senior British politicians and policymakers were “vain, naif and ignorant” and thus underestimated Nazism, refused to educate the public to Hitler’s expansionist ambitions, and failed to increase defense spending as soon as they should have. The “treasonous” appeasement of Adolf Hitler at Munich in 1938, then, simply reflected that the British government was led by knaves whose “ineptness and incapacity, [displayed] almost criminal negligence in their appointed tasks of protecting the national security. There was no strategy, merely “old fools.”

With the release of the Cabinet papers and greater distance from the trauma of World War II, however, new historical research revealed that the British government did actually have a grand strategy and that it was quite sophisticated — even if a dismal failure.

Apparently the pre-1965 orthodoxy on British "appeasement" is still orthodox in the minds of most.
 
At this point isn"t that almost all the UK has to protect itself before relying on the Unite- I mean NATO?

The British military is a shell of its former self, much like the country at large. The US is heading in that direction too on the civilian side, at least.
 
I'd argue that the UK (and France) having nuclear weapons hasn't been relevant for decades. It's purely done because enough morons in both countries are clinging to the whole 'great power' thing. The amount of nukes that the US and Russia have, the fact that the only remotely likely nuclear conflict is Pakistan v India, that the only remotely likely nuclear attack on the UK is some sorta dirty bomb (and we can't go nuking Tower Hamlets in retaliation, as much as we might like to) all seem to make the UK spending billions on them a massive fucking waste.

The UK would be far better served by stopping all these daft, short term vanity projects (e.g. Trident, blowing billions on aircraft carriers) and putting the money towards things we can and would actually use. Like a massive investment in cyber capabilities, more funding for satellite and space shit, and actually maintaining a reasonable level of infantry and aircraft.




"much like the country at large"

Because other countries, with far larger populations and greater resources have finally developed to the same level, and the UK (quite rightly) 'gave up' a load of its possessions? I don't really give a fuck either way, but the UK has done the inevitable decline of empire more gracefully than the vast majority have managed.
 
I'd argue that the UK (and France) having nuclear weapons hasn't been relevant for decades. It's purely done because enough morons in both countries are clinging to the whole 'great power' thing. The amount of nukes that the US and Russia have, the fact that the only remotely likely nuclear conflict is Pakistan v India, that the only remotely likely nuclear attack on the UK is some sorta dirty bomb (and we can't go nuking Tower Hamlets in retaliation, as much as we might like to) all seem to make the UK spending billions on them a massive fucking waste.

The UK would be far better served by stopping all these daft, short term vanity projects (e.g. Trident, blowing billions on aircraft carriers) and putting the money towards things we can and would actually use. Like a massive investment in cyber capabilities, more funding for satellite and space shit, and actually maintaining a reasonable level of infantry and aircraft.

"much like the country at large"

Because other countries, with far larger populations and greater resources have finally developed to the same level, and the UK (quite rightly) 'gave up' a load of its possessions? I don't really give a fuck either way, but the UK has done the inevitable decline of empire more gracefully than the vast majority have managed.


The UK is not a land power, it is a sea power. As is the US, interestingly enough. The nature of the UK as a tiny island necessitates that the citizenry mostly be available infantry in the event of an invasion. It lacks the manpower to project itself as an infantry to any continental nation of note. Lacking the additional resource power of its former empire, it must then turn to exclusively defensive posturing. Home and submarine based nuclear weapons are the primary physical option here. Dollar for dollar, SAM (Surface to Air Missiles) Systems are far better for air defense than aircraft. More money for better SAM systems and also for 21st century defense of the cyberspace would be better than aircraft carrier groups, aircraft, and infantry. Any additional naval forces should be relegated to something akin to swarm tactics for the channel, North Sea, immediate Atlantic, etc.

Aircraft carriers are the ultimate money sink of anyone other than the world power or aspiring world power. They are sitting ducks for increasingly advanced long range missiles, require massive groups of ships for defense, and house billions of dollars in equipment, men and training. Be mad at the UKs 2 aircraft carriers before being mad at the nukes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zabu of nΩd
I just want to add one short comment to this discussion. We must have a very strong military in order for Americans do live the lifestyle we live. If our leaders engage in war then we all hope its for the best interests of the nation. I don't think most Americans want to fight wars, but there are times when war is our only means of preserving our peace and prosperity in our country. If our military ever got weak or corrupted, our lives will become drastically different and life in America won't be so fun as it is now. We all have great lives compared to people in other countries. Even the poorest among us have it real good compared to those poverty stricken in other countries. We want to keep our nation strong and powerful at all times which is why so many billions of dollars is spent on the military each year. We can never allow our enemies to become stronger than us. The stronger America is...the safer we are. We all want a peaceful nation where children can be brought up with a chance to live a normal life. Think of the day when our troops stormed the beaches of Normandy. The slaughter that took place on that beach was horrendous. Many brave and scarred Americans didn't even make it to the beach. But they charged into the bullets shooting at them, watching their friends get cut down in front of them. But they succeeded. They sacrificed their good life here in America so we would not have to be slaves to tyrants. We must always remember this and be grateful for every man and woman in uniform who has ever served our nation.
 
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/dip...ypersonic-aircraft-starry-sky-2-could-be-used

Partially what I was referencing previously regarding the approaching outdatedness of aircraft carriers.

Although still at the experimental stage, once fully developed, waveriders could be used to carry warheads capable of penetrating any anti-missile defence system currently available.

Beijing-based military analyst Zhou Chenming said it would most likely be used for carrying conventional warheads rather than nuclear ones, adding that such a capability was still some way away.

“I think there are still three to five years before this technology can be weaponised,” he said.

“As well as being fitted to missiles, it may also have other military applications, which are still being explored.”

Now, we are talking about China state media, so it may be more bark than bite at the moment, but given the incredible cost sink of a carrier group, the incredible vulnerability this missile technology presents, and the lengthy strategic and practical procurement process for changing the technological nature of warfare, US/NATO is looking at significant navigational/power projection challenges on the near horizon.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zabu of nΩd